The next playtest announcement?

[Themetricsystem]

I'd like to see two forms of Kinetic Blasts, one that is direct and targets AC that deals higher damage via "Weapon damage dice" and another which targets a Fort or Reflex save that does less damage dice but has more "interesting" uses such as the ability to use Athletics maneuvers that are appropriate to the type they selected, say Shove for Water, Trip for Earth, Disarm for Air, etc.

Giving them this flexibility with the Blasts right out of the box can save a LOT of space and needing to screw around with needing a feat to do something cool, it also gives the option for leverage of things that trigger off Spell Attacks for the Blast as well as treating them as Weapon Attacks for things that require it.

[Temperans]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

Temperans wrote:

I don't seem them releasing Kineticist until they can figure out how to do it without making half the community angry. The community is just to split on how to implement it.

Based on my experiences, this is applicable to every playtest class, except maybe Swashbuckler.

...

My comment was more on the reception of the class. A lot of people will either buy in or out based on how it gets released.

[Midnightoker]

Themetricsystem wrote:

I'd like to see two forms of Kinetic Blasts, one that is direct and targets AC that deals higher damage via "Weapon damage dice" and another which targets a Fort or Reflex save that does less damage dice but has more "interesting" uses such as the ability to use Athletics maneuvers that are appropriate to the type they selected, say Shove for Water, Trip for Earth, Disarm for Air, etc.

Adding traits to elemental based attacks with the appropriate maneuver would be cool.

That said Shove for Water, Trip for Earth, and Disarm for Air seems backwards to me.

I could see Grapple for Water (orb of water), Shove for Earth (knock them), Disarm for Fire (heat the handle), and Trip for Air (gust to the ankles).

But I could also see Shove for Air (gust to the body), Grapple for Earth (lock feet in place), Trip for Water (Wave to the ankles), and maybe ranged Feint with Fire?

Idk, I guess what I'm saying is it would be cool if like Monk stances you could enter Elemental Stances that altered Spell Attack Rolls (or whatever these attacks are) with the appropriate Traits to pull off maneuvers.

but either way +1 to the idea of Traits on elemental attacks.

[Temperans]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Also given that touch attacks are not a thing have all the blasts do the same damage but different damage types based on element. (Pls no water == only bludgeoning)

Water having the “modular” trait would amuse me.

Let’s see. The energies are easy, they get the energy damage type.

Forceful for earth and agile for air seems interesting, though I’m sure there’s other ideas. Deadly for metal?

How would you do Deadly with spells?

Kinetic Blasts are weird, and why its hard to port then over to PF2. Energy Blasts in PF1 were weaker but easier to hit. But since all attacks now hit the same and likely will have the same damage, you will need some other way to differentiate between energy/physical blasts.

The scaling is also part of the problem. Kineticist should deal as much damage as a martial at both ranged with regular blasts, and melee with kinetic blade/whip.

Its actually fairly easy, they can be ranged elemental unarmed attacks ala the Kitsune foxfire, but strong enough to keep up-- maybe using Martial Arts Stances as a model.

who knows honestly there are so many ways to do it. I was for example thinking making it its own thing that way Kineticist are the best at actually using Kinectic Blasts. Stance model I don't think works in this case. Maybe for some of the utility talents?

[Temperans]

Themetricsystem wrote:

I'd like to see two forms of Kinetic Blasts, one that is direct and targets AC that deals higher damage via "Weapon damage dice" and another which targets a Fort or Reflex save that does less damage dice but has more "interesting" uses such as the ability to use Athletics maneuvers that are appropriate to the type they selected, say Shove for Water, Trip for Earth, Disarm for Air, etc.

Giving them this flexibility with the Blasts right out of the box can save a LOT of space and needing to screw around with needing a feat to do something cool, it also gives the option for leverage of things that trigger off Spell Attacks for the Blast as well as treating them as Weapon Attacks for things that require it.

I don't like this for the sole reason that it makes it much more complicated than it needs to be.

Its much easier to just have an infusion that lets you modify the blast to use those maneuver. Than it is to make two entirely different blasts that work in two entirely different ways that are supposed to be entirely compatible with almost all the infusions.

Its also much easier to add traits like free-hand or versatile. Aka traits that already describe how basic blasts are. Composite blasts do have more leeway. (Seriously all Kinetic Blasts that aren't based on Kinetic Blade should have the Free-Hand trait.)

[HumbleGamer]

Seems a lot of stuff for a single class

[Lanathar]

Temperans wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Also given that touch attacks are not a thing have all the blasts do the same damage but different damage types based on element. (Pls no water == only bludgeoning)

Water having the “modular” trait would amuse me.

Let’s see. The energies are easy, they get the energy damage type.

Forceful for earth and agile for air seems interesting, though I’m sure there’s other ideas. Deadly for metal?

How would you do Deadly with spells?

Kinetic Blasts are weird, and why its hard to port then over to PF2. Energy Blasts in PF1 were weaker but easier to hit. But since all attacks now hit the same and likely will have the same damage, you will need some other way to differentiate between energy/physical blasts.

The scaling is also part of the problem. Kineticist should deal as much damage as a martial at both ranged with regular blasts, and melee with kinetic blade/whip.

Why should they do this? Just because they did in 1E? No other class does equal damage at range and melee. Indeed it is pretty unaffordable to buy the requisite runes for both a melee and ranged weapon

And thrown weapons aren't a reasonable comparison as they will likely have either smaller die or shorter range than a blast

So why should kineticsts be better than all martial classes at damage option? Which is what you are asking for effectively?

If the suggestion is for their range and melee damage to be high and equal with no runes required then it simply will have to be lower than martial damage. And that will make a lot of people upset

[Lanathar]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Seems a lot of stuff for a single class

And therein lies one of the main problems. In 1E they got pretty much everything. And people will want it all to come back

It is a little bit like why Inquisitor is so hard. In 1E their thing was loads of stacking self buffs through spells, class abilities and x to y stat swaps. With the most notably being variable and flexible bane. Pretty much none of their abilities do or can exist anymore in 2E.

Same thing for kineticist where the overflow to give themselves self buffs can't exist - but shouldn't need to as the scaling will be built in the class. Burn can't exist how it used to because non lethal doesn't work in the same way. And several other things

[The-Magic-Sword]

Temperans wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Also given that touch attacks are not a thing have all the blasts do the same damage but different damage types based on element. (Pls no water == only bludgeoning)

Water having the “modular” trait would amuse me.

Let’s see. The energies are easy, they get the energy damage type.

Forceful for earth and agile for air seems interesting, though I’m sure there’s other ideas. Deadly for metal?

How would you do Deadly with spells?

Kinetic Blasts are weird, and why its hard to port then over to PF2. Energy Blasts in PF1 were weaker but easier to hit. But since all attacks now hit the same and likely will have the same damage, you will need some other way to differentiate between energy/physical blasts.

The scaling is also part of the problem. Kineticist should deal as much damage as a martial at both ranged with regular blasts, and melee with kinetic blade/whip.

Its actually fairly easy, they can be ranged elemental unarmed attacks ala the Kitsune foxfire, but strong enough to keep up-- maybe using Martial Arts Stances as a model.

who knows honestly there are so many ways to do it. I was for example thinking making it its own thing that way Kineticist are the best at actually using Kinectic Blasts. Stance model I don't think works in this case. Maybe for some of the utility talents?

I'd expect that to be a mechanic that piles damage onto their blasts ala Sneak Attack/Rage, or even just making them a third legendary attack proficiency class, but specifically with their Kinetic stances. The blasts themselves are functionally weapons at that point so much like the Monk vs. a Martial Artist Fighter, they would have to be something many classes could use viably, but that the Kineticist has a natural aptitude for.

Personally? I would consider mechanics that let the Kineticist, and only the Kineticist (with MC Kineticist offering a stripped down version) go into overdrive when using their elemental blasting-- a fighter might be able to use them well through legendary proficiency in fighting overall, but the Kineticist can actually push the art of their techniques itself to a higher level, the simplest way is to do more damage, another way is to make it much easier for them to AOE or do other trick shots through a built in 'shaping' feature that uses their stances to determine damage type and stuff.

I'm always partial to power-up modes so I would consider something like that for this, like a flow state for blasting the way precise strikes works with panache, or the way the new Arcane Cascade seems like its going to work on the Magus.

[Lanathar]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

Temperans wrote:

I don't seem them releasing Kineticist until they can figure out how to do it without making half the community angry. The community is just to split on how to implement it.

Based on my experiences, this is applicable to every playtest class, except maybe Swashbuckler.

And it isn't generally half the community, its a handful of people on the forums. The survey data and the discussion on the forum often diverge, from what we've been told-- the designers are also pretty secure doing what they think is right, even when the forums have convinced themselves of some really specific necessity.

Actually there's a great Gamemaker's Toolkit episode on feedback that I think reflects how Paizo handles it too, generally they listen for what problems people have with the class, but not for what the solution to those problems should be. So if they put out a focus point version of the class, people might complain about the focus points themselves and lobby for a specific solution, but Paizo would be listening for what the actual underlying pain point is (if there even is one) and then tune or redesign accordingly, independent of what we claim is necessary, although sometimes they had either hit on the same idea we did as a possibility, or like our idea for fixing it and go for it.

Basically, this allows them to use our feedback to improve the class, but without letting us pressure them into designs that have issues, or are too focused on replicating the 1e iteration, or don't vibe with what they're trying to accomplish in the first place.

So the community being unable to agree doesn't really matter, because they don't design via community consensus-- making these choices (or reconciling them through design finesse, or taking yet another path entirely) is their job and prerogative.

What is Gamemaker's Toolkit? That sounds like a great approach to feedback as if we are honest almost all the people suggesting things do not have the first clue about game design or game balance and nearly always ask for absurdly powerful fixes

In my experience this is most common with gunslinger and kineticists - two classes that seem to have the most vocal fans who want an astonishing level of power from their class.

[Squiggit]

Lanathar wrote:

two classes that seem to have the most vocal fans who want an astonishing level of power from their class.

I mean, there are certain basic assumptions about the classes people want to see carried forward in new versions. Power and balance can follow afterwards, but it's incredibly dismissive to brush all of those concerns aside as people just wanting overpowered characters.

[HumbleGamer]

I agree that power and balance could follow afterwards, but given the classes we had until now ( especially the new ones ), I think there might be a single class mechanic, but nothing that exclusive.

For example, I am quite sure we won't see anything able to invalidate the focus cast per round, because different reasons:

- Refocusing level ( lvl 12 for the improved one and lvl 18 for the master one, with a couple of exceptions: Champion which only has the basic one and takes it at lvl 10, and the oracle, who gets its improvement at lvl 11 and 17 for free ).

- Extra focus points ( they are niche "daily" stuff, like the one provided by the familiar, the one given by either cleric and champion, and so on )

I like reading proposal and stuff, but on the other hand I can say that I am chilling for what concerns balance and new classes/mechanics.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Lanathar wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

Temperans wrote:

I don't seem them releasing Kineticist until they can figure out how to do it without making half the community angry. The community is just to split on how to implement it.

Based on my experiences, this is applicable to every playtest class, except maybe Swashbuckler.

And it isn't generally half the community, its a handful of people on the forums. The survey data and the discussion on the forum often diverge, from what we've been told-- the designers are also pretty secure doing what they think is right, even when the forums have convinced themselves of some really specific necessity.

Actually there's a great Gamemaker's Toolkit episode on feedback that I think reflects how Paizo handles it too, generally they listen for what problems people have with the class, but not for what the solution to those problems should be. So if they put out a focus point version of the class, people might complain about the focus points themselves and lobby for a specific solution, but Paizo would be listening for what the actual underlying pain point is (if there even is one) and then tune or redesign accordingly, independent of what we claim is necessary, although sometimes they had either hit on the same idea we did as a possibility, or like our idea for fixing it and go for it.

Basically, this allows them to use our feedback to improve the class, but without letting us pressure them into designs that have issues, or are too focused on replicating the 1e iteration, or don't vibe with what they're trying to accomplish in the first place.

So the community being unable to agree doesn't really matter, because they don't design via community consensus-- making these choices (or reconciling them through design finesse, or taking yet another path entirely) is their job and prerogative.

What is Gamemaker's Toolkit? That sounds like a great approach to feedback as if we are honest almost all the people suggesting...

its a channel that goes heavily into game design, its mostly for video games but I think GMs can benefit too, here's a link to the video I mentioned.

its a pretty good example of the channel's work in my opinion.

[AnimatedPaper]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Seems a lot of stuff for a single class

I mean, Oracle curses and Summoned Eidolons eat quite a lot of page space. In fact, those might now good hints on how the kineticist might be implemented; a set of focus spells or stances that are according to your chosen element instead of the pick and choose version of PF1. That seems to be a trend.

I agree that not all of the talents and options are coming back, but until we have a design in front of us throwing spaghetti at the wall doesn’t seem all that wild.

[richienvh]

I find it interesting that this thread became a huge Kineticist thread and today we also got an Inquisitor thread on the reddit sub. While I think it’d be hard to fit both in the same thematic book, those are the 1e classes I happen to miss the most aside from the ones already published or slated for publishing

[keftiu]

richienvh wrote:

I find it interesting that this thread became a huge Kineticist thread and today we also got an Inquisitor thread on the reddit sub. While I think it’d be hard to fit both in the same thematic book, those are the 1e classes I happen to miss the most aside from the ones already published or slated for publishing

Kineticist / Inquisitor are my two most wanted by a mile, with a dedicated Occult caster or two (renamed Occultist and maybe a Psychic) coming up behind.

[belgrath9344]

I want 2e mythic rules playtest!

[Evan Tarlton]

keftiu wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I have a convoluted theory that makes me almost certain one of these will be Kineticist.

Just for funzies (nothing to do with me dieing of anticipation for kineticist), would you care to share said theory?

Guns & Gears adds two tech classes and details Alkenstar, Book of the Dead has a heavy emphasis on Geb (being partly written by him), and if we really stretch, then Secrets of Magic is a valuable text for any PC from Nex - neatly covering every part of the Impossible Lands in advance of (I hope!) a book on the region and/or a tie-in AP… with the exception of Jalmeray, famed for both elemental magics and Vudrani occultism. The former would be Kineticist, the latter would be a non-Bard occult class, which we desperately need.

Something else to consider. The Absalom sourcebook was supposed to come out in tandem with Agents of Edgewatch, and the APG (which introduced two classes that are thematically great with AoE) was released in tandem. The Mwangi Expanse sourcebook came out just before Strength of Thousands, and Secrets of Magic was supposed to come out in tandem with it. There's a pattern starting to emerge here, is what I'm saying. Throw in the Kineticist's popularity, and I think you're right about the playtest. And if you're right about that, then chances are good that next summer will make you very happy.

[keftiu]

Evan Tarlton wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I have a convoluted theory that makes me almost certain one of these will be Kineticist.

Just for funzies (nothing to do with me dieing of anticipation for kineticist), would you care to share said theory?

Guns & Gears adds two tech classes and details Alkenstar, Book of the Dead has a heavy emphasis on Geb (being partly written by him), and if we really stretch, then Secrets of Magic is a valuable text for any PC from Nex - neatly covering every part of the Impossible Lands in advance of (I hope!) a book on the region and/or a tie-in AP… with the exception of Jalmeray, famed for both elemental magics and Vudrani occultism. The former would be Kineticist, the latter would be a non-Bard occult class, which we desperately need.

Something else to consider. The Absalom sourcebook was supposed to come out in tandem with Agents of Edgewatch, and the APG (which introduced two classes that are thematically great with AoE) was released in tandem. The Mwangi Expanse sourcebook came out just before Strength of Thousands, and Secrets of Magic was supposed to come out in tandem with it. There's a pattern starting to emerge here, is what I'm saying. Throw in the Kineticist's popularity, and I think you're right about the playtest. And if you're right about that, then chances are good that next summer will make you very happy.

I hope so!

The pattern becomes fun to imagine elsewhere, too - maybe the Inquisitor returns for the Eye of Dread, hunting monsters in Ustalav and the Gravelands? I’m a little stuck on what might accompany the Golden Road, but I’d be delighted to see whatever follows.

[WWHsmackdown]

A bit off topic but I was thinking about how I would currently build a 40k inquisitor last night and I reasoned the easiest thematic build would be an interrogation investigator with divine sorc dedication. Close? Not a 1 for 1 of the original but an intelligence and charisma (for intimadion) focus seems on the money fluff wise......... and of course, chainswords exist on Golarion.

[AnimatedPaper]

keftiu wrote:

richienvh wrote:

I find it interesting that this thread became a huge Kineticist thread and today we also got an Inquisitor thread on the reddit sub. While I think it’d be hard to fit both in the same thematic book, those are the 1e classes I happen to miss the most aside from the ones already published or slated for publishing

Kineticist / Inquisitor are my two most wanted by a mile, with a dedicated Occult caster or two (renamed Occultist and maybe a Psychic) coming up behind.

As far as Occult casters go, and returning again to the NPCs in Ruby Phoenix, the Harrower on page 35 in book 2 leaps out. I know many of us would like to see that, and it would be the first class that was solidly Golarian in nature.

The other NPCs can arguably be some kind of class that is already released, perhaps with some new feats. The shield drum ability of the battle dancers looks fun, for example.

[Sanityfaerie]

Evan Tarlton wrote:

Something else to consider. The Absalom sourcebook was supposed to come out in tandem with Agents of Edgewatch, and the APG (which introduced two classes that are thematically great with AoE) was released in tandem. The Mwangi Expanse sourcebook came out just before Strength of Thousands, and Secrets of Magic was supposed to come out in tandem with it. There's a pattern starting to emerge here, is what I'm saying. Throw in the Kineticist's popularity, and I think you're right about the playtest. And if you're right about that, then chances are good that next summer will make you very happy.

So... you think Book of the Dead is going to come out alongside an undead-themed adventure path?

[Unicore]

I think a lot of folks are expecting a mana wastes/get/nex AP to coincide with guns and gears / book of the dead.

[WatersLethe]

I think I'd be most eager to see 2E's take on the Shifter. It's such a shame that 1E shifter came out right at the end of the edition and was only playable with the adaptive archetype for, like, a month.

[AnimatedPaper]

Shifter and Kineticist for me, as they’re the “totally not a caster” caster classes from PF1. I’m sort of mollified by monks, champions, and rangers, as well as alchemists to a certain extent, but I want more. And something built on a caster chassis (not that shifters will be...at least I assume not).

I’m curious from a design perspective how inquisitors will be brought forward, but probably won’t play one.

Unicore wrote:

I think a lot of folks are expecting a mana wastes/get/nex AP to coincide with guns and gears / book of the dead.

The level 11-20 AP hasn’t been announced yet, still definitely a possibility.

[Temperans]

Lanathar wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Seems a lot of stuff for a single class

Same thing for kineticist where the overflow to give themselves self buffs can't exist - but shouldn't need to as the scaling will be built in the class. Burn can't exist how it used to because non lethal doesn't work in the same way. And several other things

Idk much about Inquisitor, but you got somethings wrong with Kineticist.

1) Burn does not require nonlethal damage. It was just easy to use that in PF1.
2) Overflow was not a strict buff. It was mostly a compensation for the fact they literally lost HP for using their abilities.
3) Kineticist was one of the first, if not the first class with a scaling at will magical attack. Heck PF2 probably took the idea for scalling cantrips from Kineticist itself.

Also its not a matter of power, its a matter of the fantasy of Kineticist. Their whole thing is single target damage at will, with the option of burning HP and/or saves for more powerful effects. If they can't even deal good single target damage consistently, then its not a Kineticist. Maybe its a Warlock, but its not a Kineticist.

[Alchemic_Genius]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

As far as Occult casters go, and returning again to the NPCs in Ruby Phoenix, the Harrower on page 35 in book 2 leaps out. I know many of us would like to see that, and it would be the first class that was solidly Golarian in nature.

I loved harrower, and the harrow book is still one of my favorite splatbooks from 1e (the alchemy one is still #1). I never got to play the class, but I was full on prepared to buy the deck and learn how to fortune tell with ut because I liked the flavor that much.

Idk if I'd want it being occult only though I'd rather is be an archetype for casters, so that, say, my desna cleric could be a harrower alongside the enigma bard peering into to future with their strange powers, or the varisian divination wizard who's deck is their arcane bond, etc

[Albatoonoe]

I think the Azarketi and Kitsune offer really solid ideas for what to do with the Kineticist. A dedicated attack (like foxfire) and some basic abilities, mixed with focus spells for more powerful abilities, would be pretty solid.

I like Burn as a mechanic, but I wouldn't be surprised if it came back as a feat and not as a core ability.

[Squiggit]

In PF1, the kineticist could spend actions to gather power to reduce burn cost.

For PF2 I think it'd be pretty easy to adopt a metamagic style model either for something similar to gather power or for the infusions you attach to the blast itself.

... Flipping Burn around and making it so extra actions are the default and there's a feat/something somewhere that lets you reduce the action cost of Infusions at the cost of your health could be interesting, though maybe hard to balance properly. Something like a feat that lets you reduce the action cost of an infusion but it gives you Drained until you rest or something, maybe.

Honestly I think the hardest part about the kineticist isn't the math or how to design blasts or anything unimportant like overflow, it's just figuring out what pieces to put into PF2. The PF1 Kineticist got 10 utility talents, 8 infusions, two expanded elements, metakinesis and etc. and it'll be tricky to figure out how to prune that down into something that fits in 10 class feats and a PF2 martial chassis.

That's not really a unique problem to the kineticist though, most classes have to deal with that to some extent in carryover.

[Lanathar]

Utility talents could be special elemental skill feats maybe?

[Lanathar]

Temperans wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Seems a lot of stuff for a single class

Same thing for kineticist where the overflow to give themselves self buffs can't exist - but shouldn't need to as the scaling will be built in the class. Burn can't exist how it used to because non lethal doesn't work in the same way. And several other things

Idk much about Inquisitor, but you got somethings wrong with Kineticist.

1) Burn does not require nonlethal damage. It was just easy to use that in PF1.
2) Overflow was not a strict buff. It was mostly a compensation for the fact they literally lost HP for using their abilities.
3) Kineticist was one of the first, if not the first class with a scaling at will magical attack. Heck PF2 probably took the idea for scalling cantrips from Kineticist itself.

Also its not a matter of power, its a matter of the fantasy of Kineticist. Their whole thing is single target damage at will, with the option of burning HP and/or saves for more powerful effects. If they can't even deal good single target damage consistently, then its not a Kineticist. Maybe its a Warlock, but its not a Kineticist.

1). You are right of course. But how well received would alternative like Drained or something akin to Life Oracle's curse be among the fans? I have a slight hunch

2). This is new to me having GM'd one for 13 levels in 1E. They lost HP certainly. But somehow nearly always seemed to end up with the most HP even after all this unless you got really cavalier with Burn which most people did not.

Overflow boosted Con to offset the HP loss anyway - unless we played that wrong...

3). I don't see how this is something I "got wrong". I don't recall saying they weren't the first?

You make a good point on scaling cantrips being inspired by the blast. But surely you know what the reaction of the fans is when you try to suggest the kinetic blast be like scaling cantrips. I do - because I have. It is met pretty much with fury. The implication being that is must be better

Indeed in this thread there was suggestion that the scaling should be automatic for ranged and melee attacks which would put them above other martials who need to buy runes for two weapons. Suggesting a Kineticist buy none? That would need to be balanced somehow - likely in accuracy or damage. I'd expect neither would be popular...

*

I do have question over the "fantasy of Kineticist". Because where does this even come from? Specifically the burning the HP to boost. Is that from somewhere or was it just part of the 1E rules.

Your definition of the "fantasy" is literally a summary of the Pathfinder 1E rules for Kineticist

If it is just this (and I have to assume it is not) then it simply does not count in my view. I would suggest you can't appeal to the "fantasy" of something that only existed for circa 4 years in one edition of one role-playing game.

What I am saying is as popular as it may be if there isn't more to it than that then there is potential for a complete rework rather than the 1E version just being largely ported over. For example something to do with Elemental stances and being more like ranged elemental monks. (But that might be what the Elementalist Monks in SoM are)

I appreciate that the basis of Kineticist seems to be Avatar. But do they drain themselves in that? Is their main thing single target attacks? Or is this all from 1E Pathfinder

[Lanathar]

WatersLethe wrote:

I think I'd be most eager to see 2E's take on the Shifter. It's such a shame that 1E shifter came out right at the end of the edition and was only playable with the adaptive archetype for, like, a month.

What would you want to see that differs from Animal Barbarian?

I guess shifting not being tied to rage and getting the full animal change?

So Wild Druid with the spells removed and replaced with a series of other things? (Including better combat proficiency?)

[Lanathar]

Squiggit wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

two classes that seem to have the most vocal fans who want an astonishing level of power from their class.

I mean, there are certain basic assumptions about the classes people want to see carried forward in new versions. Power and balance can follow afterwards, but it's incredibly dismissive to brush all of those concerns aside as people just wanting overpowered characters.

I am intrigued that you say my statement is "incredibly dismissive" in a post in which you are utterly dismissive yourself

My comment was an opinion based on what I have personally read / heard from multiple sources where these things are discussed.

And notably I don't address "concerns" at all.

Because, for example, requests for guns to be the most powerful weapon in the game and largely invalidate armor are not "concerns" in my opinion

Or indeed this in thread where someone is asking for the kineticist primary attack to scale with runes (seemingly for free) at both melee and ranged putting them at an incredible advantage (in my opinion at least) over the majority (if not all) martials. Perhaps "astonishing level of power" is hyperbole but they don't seem like reasonable requests on paper

You don't agree. Fair enough.

[AnimatedPaper]

Lanathar wrote:

I do have question over the "fantasy of Kineticist". Because where does this even come from? Specifically the burning the HP to boost. Is that from somewhere or was it just part of the 1E rules.

It’s from horror versions of psionics, like in Carrie or Scanners. Burning yourself up to empower your psychic abilities is a pretty common trope. Even the 3.- wilder had that.

I think while a lot of *players* think Avatar, the writing was initially something like Legion or one of the others I mentioned. Though certainly there are archetypes and options that leaned very hard into Avatar, as that was too big to ignore.

[enrik]

Among my friends group I've speculated that after the "Book of the Dead" there might be a "Book of the Wilds" which would detail fey, beasts, plant creatures, elementals, and nature spirits. The PF1 classes that come to mind are: Shaman, Kineticist, and Shifter. How these classes would appear in pf2 and if there would be new ones only Paizo devs could say.

[Guntermench]

Being someone that dislikes Psionics and Magic in the same universe, I want anything but something related to that.

[keftiu]

Guntermench wrote:

Being someone that dislikes Psionics and Magic in the same universe, I want anything but something related to that.

They’re never going to be called “psionics” in this setting again, but psychics have existed in the setting since before Pathfinder 1e came out; Vudra is a haven for psychic magic. Nevermind that 1e had a Psychic class.

[keftiu]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Evan Tarlton wrote:

Something else to consider. The Absalom sourcebook was supposed to come out in tandem with Agents of Edgewatch, and the APG (which introduced two classes that are thematically great with AoE) was released in tandem. The Mwangi Expanse sourcebook came out just before Strength of Thousands, and Secrets of Magic was supposed to come out in tandem with it. There's a pattern starting to emerge here, is what I'm saying. Throw in the Kineticist's popularity, and I think you're right about the playtest. And if you're right about that, then chances are good that next summer will make you very happy.

So... you think Book of the Dead is going to come out alongside an undead-themed adventure path?

Guns & Gears describes Alkenstar and lets you play characters that thematically fit (Gunslinger, Inventor), and then Book of the Dead is written in parts by Geb himself and offers undead PC options - neatly covering 2/4 nations in the Impossible Lands. I think that’s the AP and Lost Omens book to look out for.

[Temperans]

Lanathar wrote:

1). You are right of course. But how well received would alternative like Drained or something akin to Life Oracle's curse be among the fans? I have a slight hunch

2). This is new to me having GM'd one for 13 levels in 1E. They lost HP certainly. But somehow nearly always seemed to end up with the most HP even after all this unless you got really cavalier with Burn which most people did not.

Overflow boosted Con to offset the HP loss anyway - unless we played that wrong...

3). I don't see how this is something I "got wrong". I don't recall saying they weren't the first?

You make a good point on scaling cantrips being inspired by the blast. But surely you know what the reaction of the fans is when you try to suggest the kinetic blast be like scaling cantrips. I do - because I have. It is met pretty much with fury. The implication...

1) Yes burn has always been a debatable part. But it has always been crucial to it. And like Animated Paper said, it could easily be made into a level 1 feat for people who want it.

2) You don't say the class whose main attribute was Con easily had the most HP? Its almost as if people maxed out Con to get the most damage, DC, and burn. Also yeah people didnt use too much burn. But thats the point, the class presents you the tools. But you as the player choose how much is enough, and every player picks differently.

3) Kineticist Blast are the inspiration for Scalling cantrips. But that does not mean they should be the same. Kinetic Blasts have always been stronger than cantrips and comparable to martials in damage.

**********

...The fact you had to ask what is the fantasy...
* Carrie
* Elfen Lied
* Magneto
* The human torch
* Iceman
* Elsa
* Gaara
* Ghost Rider
* Swamp thing
* Wind Dancer
* W.I.T.C.H
Etc.

Kineticist honestly covers so many series, heroes, magic systems, etc. Its easier to find a character that connect to Kineticists than one that connects to Vancian casting.

[Guntermench]

keftiu wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Being someone that dislikes Psionics and Magic in the same universe, I want anything but something related to that.

They’re never going to be called “psionics” in this setting again, but psychics have existed in the setting since before Pathfinder 1e came out; Vudra is a haven for psychic magic. Nevermind that 1e had a Psychic class.

I'm aware. I just don't like them, so I'd prefer everything I'm going to use in my games come out first.

[HeHateMe]

Guntermench wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Being someone that dislikes Psionics and Magic in the same universe, I want anything but something related to that.

They’re never going to be called “psionics” in this setting again, but psychics have existed in the setting since before Pathfinder 1e came out; Vudra is a haven for psychic magic. Nevermind that 1e had a Psychic class.

I'm aware. I just don't like them, so I'd prefer everything I'm going to use in my games come out first.

Well then it's a good thing you're Paizo's only customer! Oh wait...

[Guntermench]

I never said I was. I stated a preference. I'm aware it's a popular archetype.

[Aaron Shanks]

Here's a hint. We won't have two playlists going on simultaneously.

[keftiu]

Guntermench wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Being someone that dislikes Psionics and Magic in the same universe, I want anything but something related to that.

They’re never going to be called “psionics” in this setting again, but psychics have existed in the setting since before Pathfinder 1e came out; Vudra is a haven for psychic magic. Nevermind that 1e had a Psychic class.

I'm aware. I just don't like them, so I'd prefer everything I'm going to use in my games come out first.

Does occult magic get your hackles up? That’s honestly how I expect to see all of it done in 2e.

[Guntermench]

keftiu wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Being someone that dislikes Psionics and Magic in the same universe, I want anything but something related to that.

They’re never going to be called “psionics” in this setting again, but psychics have existed in the setting since before Pathfinder 1e came out; Vudra is a haven for psychic magic. Nevermind that 1e had a Psychic class.

I'm aware. I just don't like them, so I'd prefer everything I'm going to use in my games come out first.

Does occult magic get your hackles up? That’s honestly how I expect to see all of it done in 2e.

I just have a preference for not having Jedi/professor X and spellcasting in the same game.

[Unicore]

Grankless wrote:

Now to figure out if "gunslinger" and "inventor" was two playtests, or one "guns and Gears" playtest...

Since the question was more about when we would get the playtest announcement, I think it is safe to assume that Aaron means it will happen after the starfinder playtest.

[Rysky]

Guntermench wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Being someone that dislikes Psionics and Magic in the same universe, I want anything but something related to that.

They’re never going to be called “psionics” in this setting again, but psychics have existed in the setting since before Pathfinder 1e came out; Vudra is a haven for psychic magic. Nevermind that 1e had a Psychic class.

I'm aware. I just don't like them, so I'd prefer everything I'm going to use in my games come out first.

Does occult magic get your hackles up? That’s honestly how I expect to see all of it done in 2e.

I just have a preference for not having Jedi/professor X and spellcasting in the same game.

... huh?

Those are interchangeable by mechanics speaking (also not sure what Jedi and Professor X have to do with each other).

[Guntermench]

Rysky wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Being someone that dislikes Psionics and Magic in the same universe, I want anything but something related to that.

They’re never going to be called “psionics” in this setting again, but psychics have existed in the setting since before Pathfinder 1e came out; Vudra is a haven for psychic magic. Nevermind that 1e had a Psychic class.

I'm aware. I just don't like them, so I'd prefer everything I'm going to use in my games come out first.

Does occult magic get your hackles up? That’s honestly how I expect to see all of it done in 2e.

I just have a preference for not having Jedi/professor X and spellcasting in the same game.

... huh?

Those are interchangeable by mechanics speaking (also not sure what Jedi and Professor X have to do with each other).

It's a flavour thing. Just not my cup of tea.

Though historically I also haven't really been a fan of psychic/psionic mechanics.

Look, I'm not trying to convince anyone to not want this stuff. Please don't try to convince me to like it.

[Rysky]

I'm certainly not trying, I'm just confused.

Jedi can jump good and shoot lighting (more "standard" magic stuff in the RPGs and expanded universe etc) and Professor X can read/wipe minds?

You can do all that in Pathfinder with spells, the Traditions don't really affect it like that.