Kineticist on tbe Horizon ?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The kinetesist was one the more popular classes from 1e especially out of the list of pathfinder original classes.

It's a class that quite a few people at least on the forum want to see in 2e. But it's also one of the few classes the development team have said that they are outright not working on because they are not sure how to port it to 2e.

That particular quote was several years old now and things change. Do you think the Kinetesist might be now on the cards or at least over the horizon for 2e or do you think its a class that won't be ported over to the new system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have already said that porting that class will be incredibly difficult to port over without losing something important in the process. So, I doubt they will port it. They might port something similar or something with the same name, but that class will likely remain a PF1 exclusive.

(Much like how Summoner was not ported over and instead we got "Summoner" [read Manifester])


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
I have already said that porting that class will be incredibly difficult to port over without losing something important in the process.

Such as?

- Kinetic Blast: at-will ability that deals 1d6/2 levels of a chosen damage type.
- Infusions: features that change the blast's range, area and effects
- Talents: features that mimics spells, based on youyr chosen element
- Burn: point cost for infusions and talents

I don't see which one would be complicated to port...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Paizo has to know that it and the Inquisitor are the two most commonly asked for by fans; what they do with that info remains to be seen. I didn’t think we’d get a 2e Psychic as soon as we did, so anything’s possible.

All eyes are on PaizoCon, and Gen Con after.

Liberty's Edge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't the horizon the thing that always gets further away ?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

I have already said that porting that class will be incredibly difficult to port over without losing something important in the process. So, I doubt they will port it. They might port something similar or something with the same name, but that class will likely remain a PF1 exclusive.

(Much like how Summoner was not ported over and instead we got "Summoner" [read Manifester])

I love the summoner they ported from pf1!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I have already said that porting that class will be incredibly difficult to port over without losing something important in the process. So, I doubt they will port it. They might port something similar or something with the same name, but that class will likely remain a PF1 exclusive.

(Much like how Summoner was not ported over and instead we got "Summoner" [read Manifester])

I love the summoner they ported from pf1!

I think the summoner is a great class in 2e one of my favourites after my holy trifecta (bard,fighter,rogue) but I don't think its great for simulating the feel of the 1e class.

But then again none of the 2e classes feel or play like their 1e equivalent.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I have already said that porting that class will be incredibly difficult to port over without losing something important in the process. So, I doubt they will port it. They might port something similar or something with the same name, but that class will likely remain a PF1 exclusive.

(Much like how Summoner was not ported over and instead we got "Summoner" [read Manifester])

I love the summoner they ported from pf1!

I think the summoner is a great class in 2e one of my favourites after my holy trifecta (bard,fighter,rogue) but I don't think its great for simulating the feel of the 1e class.

But then again none of the 2e classes feel or play like their 1e equivalent.

Which is likely good for Fighter, Rogue and also Monk ;-)


8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I have already said that porting that class will be incredibly difficult to port over without losing something important in the process. So, I doubt they will port it. They might port something similar or something with the same name, but that class will likely remain a PF1 exclusive.

(Much like how Summoner was not ported over and instead we got "Summoner" [read Manifester])

I love the summoner they ported from pf1!

I think the summoner is a great class in 2e one of my favourites after my holy trifecta (bard,fighter,rogue) but I don't think its great for simulating the feel of the 1e class.

But then again none of the 2e classes feel or play like their 1e equivalent.

Which is likely good for Fighter, Rogue and also Monk ;-)

look I used to play monks in 1e to punish myself, as a sort of masochistic self inflicted exercise in mediocrity and pain!

Now 2e has robbed me of that by making monks playable!! How dare you paizo, HOW DARE YOU!!


AlastarOG wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I have already said that porting that class will be incredibly difficult to port over without losing something important in the process. So, I doubt they will port it. They might port something similar or something with the same name, but that class will likely remain a PF1 exclusive.

(Much like how Summoner was not ported over and instead we got "Summoner" [read Manifester])

I love the summoner they ported from pf1!

I think the summoner is a great class in 2e one of my favourites after my holy trifecta (bard,fighter,rogue) but I don't think its great for simulating the feel of the 1e class.

But then again none of the 2e classes feel or play like their 1e equivalent.

Which is likely good for Fighter, Rogue and also Monk ;-)

look I used to play monks in 1e to punish myself, as a sort of masochistic self inflicted exercise in mediocrity and pain!

Now 2e has robbed me of that by making monks playable!! How dare you paizo, HOW DARE YOU!!

Speaking off, I have never actually seen a monk do badly in all my time playing even in PF1. The only thing I can imagine is a bunch of people decided to use power attack and flurry of blows. The PF2 equivalent being to used flurry of blows as your second or third attack action and complaining that you keep missing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It used to be called ''Flurry of Fail'' by most people on the boards, and with good reason.

Power attack was the default in 3.5/PF1e. You always power attacked because it was mathematically better than not power attacking, even with the accuracy reduction.

The monk had no accuracy mechanic in pf1e, which set it very much under anything else.

Fighters had weapon training
Barbarians Rage
Paladins Smite
Rangers Favored ennemy
Magus Arcane Accuracy
Swashbucklers had Weapon training too

and so on and so on.

Which left the poor rogue and monk without any accuracy mechanic and with 3/4 BAB in a niche made out of suck compared to anything else.

And then of course casters would invalidate them all, because even if they did perform on par to other damage classes, the wizard could end the fight with one spell.

So yeah, the monk did badly, I could get the math out if you want but its pretty factual.


AlastarOG wrote:

It used to be called ''Flurry of Fail'' by most people on the boards, and with good reason.

Power attack was the default in 3.5/PF1e. You always power attacked because it was mathematically better than not power attacking, even with the accuracy reduction.

The monk had no accuracy mechanic in pf1e, which set it very much under anything else.

Fighters had weapon training
Barbarians Rage
Paladins Smite
Rangers Favored ennemy
Magus Arcane Accuracy
Swashbucklers had Weapon training too

and so on and so on.

Which left the poor rogue and monk without any accuracy mechanic and with 3/4 BAB in a niche made out of suck compared to anything else.

And then of course casters would invalidate them all, because even if they did perform on par to other damage classes, the wizard could end the fight with one spell.

So yeah, the monk did badly, I could get the math out if you want but its pretty factual.

No need, I already know the potential issues. I was just saying that I never actually saw the flurry of misses.


Yeah I actually had a player at the table who loved monks... but then when I saw him play he would have a higher rolling average than most, and love the monk for those times when he only rolled 18+ on all attack rolls. When his luck turned however he would usually start pouting and stop playing.

Which would really not impact the fight cause you know... he played a monk.

So YMMV but lets just say the monk right now is much better !

And this is coming from the guy who made a thread called ''Monks suck and I hate them!''

(Paraphrasing for effect, actual name is:
Why do I hate the monk where everyone seems to like it?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well back to the Kineticist discussion.

@JiCi Of course its personal opinion, but I do not think that paizo as it stands currently is willing enough to port over the Kineticist in a way that would not leave them feeling like half a character. It is not that the individual parts is hard to port, but the sum total for a proper kineticist feels to me like its much higher than what Paizo is willing to give based on the classes that they have released so far.

If witch can't have strong hexes and Magus has to deal with AoO and weird action economy, I do not see how Kineticist can be created without them trying to come up with something that would make them immobile (one of my complaints with Legendary game's version) and more finicky than what people already though that class was.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I suspect that a 2e Kineticist would end up looking mechanically a lot more like a Soulknife than a Kineticist - i.e. their blasts would be balanced as basically reskinned weapons.

That sounds great to me, I love Soulknife, but I understand that it's not what a lot of people want out of Kineticist.

I definitely don't see them having an at-will attack that is stronger than a cantrip. I don't think that fits into the balance of 2e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was quite a while ago now, but Jason buhlman was on a podcast to talk about paizo stuff and was specifically asked 'when is kineticist coming to 2e'. His answer was something along the lines of 'we know people want it, it's popular, and it will come to 2e at some point. We just don't have a place for it yet.'.

So it will likely come to the game, but not for a long time. Paizo tends to plan years ahead, and development takes another couple years. So don't hold your breath.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. I also imagine that Mark Seifter leaving Paizo didn't move things up in the timeline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Y'know, they could use their own Solarian from Starfinder as a base :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Solarian is completely different from Kineticist. Not to mention the fact that with Starfinder being much closer to 3.5/PF1 than it is to PF2, you'd have to design from scratch anyway.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

I suspect that a 2e Kineticist would end up looking mechanically a lot more like a Soulknife than a Kineticist - i.e. their blasts would be balanced as basically reskinned weapons.

That sounds great to me, I love Soulknife, but I understand that it's not what a lot of people want out of Kineticist.

I definitely don't see them having an at-will attack that is stronger than a cantrip. I don't think that fits into the balance of 2e.

Why not? Cantrips are there to give spellcasters something to do when they run out of spells. Kimeticists have no spells.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Why not? Cantrips are there to give spellcasters something to do when they run out of spells. Kimeticists have no spells.

Indeed. As far as I'm concerned, the whole poitn of the Kineticist is "I want to play a caster, but I want to cash in all of my daily spells and get that power budget back in improvements to my cantrips." If they're simply unwilling to make cantrip effects better than "Wizardly holdout pistol" levels under any circumstances, then they're flatly unwilling to produce a kineticist.

My read is that they're willing but not ready. The psychic is an experiment in carefully exploring in that direction. The thaumaturge is careful exploration into the same unknown space from another direction. This would be easy to get wrong, and they're trying to not get it wrong. It's cool. I can wait.

Of course, these things have all been said before.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of things which have probably already been said, the damage people expect from kinetic blast probably varies by what they picture the notional final product to focus on. For people who imagine the kineticist as essentially a martial class that uses energy attacks instead of weapons, and whose main schtick is throwing energy with a few other secondary tricks, it makes sense to model their damage off what a martial could output with the same number of actions. For those who see the kineticist as using blasts as their bread and butter fallback but picture them enhancing those blasts with a limited pool of resources they use to power up or do cool extra things, it makes sense for that blast to be more comparable to a cantrip.

How much damage the blast does depends on how much power budget you want to save over for doing other cool things. Both versions of the class could be excellent, either focusing on blasts as the main attack or as the fallback for saving resources on minor fights, but it'll be hard to argue how much damage the blast should do without a clear picture which version of the class we're talking about at the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

If Amp and Psychic unleash had proven popular, I’d have put money on those being reworked to recreate Burn and it’s associated mechanics. But as it is, I think they went back to the drawing board.


I'm hoping more for a martial-like progression for the blasts. It'll make the blasts less powerful individually, but it opens up the action economy for the kineticist to play with it more.

It's also possible to grant a kineticist the ability to do a blast as a two-action activity, in which case it does damage like a cantrip. Helpful for punching through resistances better since you wouldn't have to be attacking with two blasts and suffering them twice. Granted I can also see the opposite being true, a cantrip-style blast with the ability to flurry with smaller blasts as an option.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
If Amp and Psychic unleash had proven popular, I’d have put money on those being reworked to recreate Burn and it’s associated mechanics. But as it is, I think they went back to the drawing board.

I could still imagine it being used thus. The issue was that the unleashes meant that you could basically amp every round, which made ti more or less at-will. The fact that that the Psychic still had a bunch of daily spells to throw around (not as many as the other full casters, but still a decent number) meant that they just didn't have the power budget to make amping feel satisfying and also have it be something that you could do every round of every battle.


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

Yeah, I’d have loved for Amps to be usable every round (as long as you unleashed anyways) but given the power budget of full focus spells. And slots axed completely to make room for new Amps selected each odd level, the majority of which give a slightly more powerful effect when used with your Kinetic Blast. Or your kinetic blast gaining a slight damage boost when Amped (in addition to the other amp effect)

In fairness, I did homebrew a class that more or less did that, so I’ll admit my bias towards wanting to see that idea done properly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Solarian is completely different from Kineticist. Not to mention the fact that with Starfinder being much closer to 3.5/PF1 than it is to PF2, you'd have to design from scratch anyway.

They could rework the Kineticist so you could select between a blast (standard), a blade (like the Kinetic Blade) or an armor (to mimic an elemental), each with talents, similar to how the inventor has 3 options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
My read is that they're willing but not ready. The psychic is an experiment in carefully exploring in that direction.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem like something they want to commit to. The post-playtest notes seemed like they were leaning away from cantrips.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
Solarian is completely different from Kineticist. Not to mention the fact that with Starfinder being much closer to 3.5/PF1 than it is to PF2, you'd have to design from scratch anyway.
They could rework the Kineticist so you could select between a blast (standard), a blade (like the Kinetic Blade) or an armor (to mimic an elemental), each with talents, similar to how the inventor has 3 options.

This would be a dream come true, as a fan of a number of related concepts: Soulknives, Starfinder’s Solarians, the 1e Gloomblade archetype and 3pp Aegis class… yes, /please/.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or... you have a kineticist that gets a choice of element and with it they get: A kinetic blast, a kinetic defense, and the option to get a kinetic blade. All while being able to get utility talents that are agnostic to both, and the ability to get substance and form infusions that combo well.

If you want a soulblade/Solarian/Gloomblade make that its own class, the Kineticist already has more than enough to fill 10+ pages. Adding those not only would restrict the kineticist even more, but it would also dilute the very essential elemental nature behind "Kineticist". That type of rework would thus be a disservice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
but it would also dilute the very essential elemental nature behind "Kineticist".

Good. The PF1 Kineticist was never a simple elementalist and neither should the PF2 version. Nothing "essential" about it.


Squiggit wrote:
Temperans wrote:
but it would also dilute the very essential elemental nature behind "Kineticist".
Good. The PF1 Kineticist was never a simple elementalist and neither should the PF2 version. Nothing "essential" about it.

I never said that they were simple elementalist, but that having to make a choice between blast, "blade" (it really should not be just a blade, and armor would limit what you can build, while also making it harder to support things properly with feats. Just look at how most subclasses cannot take feats that belong to other subclasses or doing so requires some hoops. Also, I don't want a repeat of witch where the flavor is all a mess because of no coherent theme beyond "I learn from a patron".

* Note: I am a very big enjoyer of Kinetic Knight (Which gets Kinetic Blade and armor/shield power), so I do want that available. But I would rather it be an archetype that gets its own dedicated feats than it being subclass that takes away space from what all kineticist should be able to pick.


I think it's probably not gonna see the light of Playtest until 2023's Summer/Fall, but I would like it this Paizocon if possible. I except some primal/fae book in the pipeline far up stream, so I'm hopeful but not expectant for it Soon(tm)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
They could rework the Kineticist so you could select between a blast (standard), a blade (like the Kinetic Blade) or an armor (to mimic an elemental), each with talents, similar to how the inventor has 3 options.

So what I hear you saying is that you want a Solarian-equivalent, and you're hoping to sneak one in by calling it "Kineticist".

You're probably better off just asking for what you want outright. Start up a thread for discussing the possibility of adding Solarian-equivalent to PF2. Explore ideas, consider implementations, and see if you can drum up support. Don't do it by saying "Well, for the kineticist, we could just not have a kineticist, and have a Solarian instead."

nick1wasd wrote:
I think it's probably not gonna see the light of Playtest until 2023's Summer/Fall, but I would like it this Paizocon if possible. I except some primal/fae book in the pipeline far up stream, so I'm hopeful but not expectant for it Soon(tm)

I wouldn't be surprised by a 2023 Summer/Fall playtest. I continue to expect that they'll wait the design on it at least until Dark Archive is out in player hands, and they can get some player feedback on how well the final version of Psychic/Thaumaturge is working.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I want Solarian in PF2 as its own class. You'd have to do a ton of work to convince me its worthwhile to smash the two pretty dissimilar classes together. PF2 will allow us to explore lots of the lore and intent of the Solarian that Starfinder just couldn't.

I see Solarian as a mystic warrior with a spiritual connection to cosmic forces that ended up playing more like a simple bruiser because the attempt at making an interesting build-spend and photon/graviton switching mechanic failed. It was meant to feel sort of like a Jedi, but didn't get anything like enough interesting non-combat options.

I see a Kineticist as a conduit of elemental power that could fill in for an elemental damage focused spellcaster. The elemental blade stuff is secondary, in my opinion, but should ideally also get other elemental stuff like the ranged blasts and elemental utility. I don't see it requiring any sort of spirituality or mysticism, and doesn't need a Stellar Mode type mechanic.

A Kineticist might be able to handle what the Solarian ended up playing like, but not what it was supposed to be.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:

So what I hear you saying is that you want a Solarian-equivalent, and you're hoping to sneak one in by calling it "Kineticist".

You're probably better off just asking for what you want outright. Start up a thread for discussing the possibility of adding Solarian-equivalent to PF2. Explore ideas, consider implementations, and see if you can drum up support. Don't do it by saying "Well, for the kineticist, we could just not have a kineticist, and have a Solarian instead."

For some reason, everytime I compare the Kineticist to Starfinder's Solarian and D&D's Warlock, people look at me weird.

They all have similar mechanics: you have a damaging power, with abilities to shape it. Isn't the Solarian Weapon the same as the Kinetic Blade, or the Warlock's Eldritch Blast the same as the Kinetic Blast?

One thing people keep saying is how complicated porting the Kineticist is, but if Paizo maganed to do something similar with the Solarian, I don't see the problem here.

Also, Kineticists could use specializations, but I swear that 99% of them back in P1E ditched the manufactured weapons and the Strength score for maximum beating and blasting.


In a lot of ways kineticist would be easy to port to 2e, it's a common thing to read people say that kineticist was what the 2e action economy was based off of. Not sure how true that is but I could see it.

The main thing I could see being a problem is that kineticists get so many choices that it would be difficult to put them all into the class feat pool. Infusions, wild talents, regular feats, and class features is a lot to jam into 2es class feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:

In a lot of ways kineticist would be easy to port to 2e, it's a common thing to read people say that kineticist was what the 2e action economy was based off of. Not sure how true that is but I could see it.

The main thing I could see being a problem is that kineticists get so many choices that it would be difficult to put them all into the class feat pool. Infusions, wild talents, regular feats, and class features is a lot to jam into 2es class feats.

It would be easy to port. The difficult part is balancing it.


Gaulin wrote:

In a lot of ways kineticist would be easy to port to 2e, it's a common thing to read people say that kineticist was what the 2e action economy was based off of. Not sure how true that is but I could see it.

The main thing I could see being a problem is that kineticists get so many choices that it would be difficult to put them all into the class feat pool. Infusions, wild talents, regular feats, and class features is a lot to jam into 2es class feats.

People see scaling cantrip as a Kineticist invention, despite that not being the case. Same for thinking skill feats are utility talents and focus points being burn.

But in reality:
* 3 action economy came from PF1e Ultimate books.
* Skill feats are just rogue talents, just see how Rogue get more of them.
* Focus points is closer to arcane pool of arcanist, magus, psychic, and occultist. All of which have ways to recover points.
* Scaling cantrip is just a way to scale damage that plenty of spells used, they just decided to apply it to cantrips because people hated 1d3 non-scaling cantrips. In PF2 it also serves as a baseline for what minimal damage should be.

Yes you are right that the issue is getting everything in, but as Sanityfaerie said the biggest issue is balance. Kineticist was middle of the road in PF1 being a martial character with magic abilities (equivalent to 3/4 casters) but that's exactly the type of character that Paizo refuses to make, allow, or support in PF2.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Gaulin wrote:

In a lot of ways kineticist would be easy to port to 2e, it's a common thing to read people say that kineticist was what the 2e action economy was based off of. Not sure how true that is but I could see it.

The main thing I could see being a problem is that kineticists get so many choices that it would be difficult to put them all into the class feat pool. Infusions, wild talents, regular feats, and class features is a lot to jam into 2es class feats.

It would be easy to port. The difficult part is balancing it.

Have you seen the legendary kineticist for PF2E? It's pretty balanced and flavorful.

Sczarni

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Gaulin wrote:

In a lot of ways kineticist would be easy to port to 2e, it's a common thing to read people say that kineticist was what the 2e action economy was based off of. Not sure how true that is but I could see it.

The main thing I could see being a problem is that kineticists get so many choices that it would be difficult to put them all into the class feat pool. Infusions, wild talents, regular feats, and class features is a lot to jam into 2es class feats.

People see scaling cantrip as a Kineticist invention, despite that not being the case. Same for thinking skill feats are utility talents and focus points being burn.

But in reality:
* 3 action economy came from PF1e Ultimate books.
* Skill feats are just rogue talents, just see how Rogue get more of them.
* Focus points is closer to arcane pool of arcanist, magus, psychic, and occultist. All of which have ways to recover points.
* Scaling cantrip is just a way to scale damage that plenty of spells used, they just decided to apply it to cantrips because people hated 1d3 non-scaling cantrips. In PF2 it also serves as a baseline for what minimal damage should be.

Yes you are right that the issue is getting everything in, but as Sanityfaerie said the biggest issue is balance. Kineticist was middle of the road in PF1 being a martial character with magic abilities (equivalent to 3/4 casters) but that's exactly the type of character that Paizo refuses to make, allow, or support in PF2.

Yeah! No martial characters with magic abilities in PF2!

What? Ignore Magus and Summoner. They don't exist.


Magus and Summoner are now 1/2 caster not 3/4 caster. Big difference when it comes to balance.

Kineticist would be getting effectively infinite spells when Paizo is currently very into highly restricting such abilities. Just look at Witch.

The reason why Legendary games works is because they aren't Paizo. They don't really care if the class fits the balance point paizo set as its 3rd party.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Yeah. I also imagine that Mark Seifter leaving Paizo didn't move things up in the timeline.

Wait. What? When did that happen? @.@


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Yeah. I also imagine that Mark Seifter leaving Paizo didn't move things up in the timeline.
Wait. What? When did that happen? @.@

Back in January, I believe. He's now the Director of Game Design for the Battlezoo line of products at Roll for Combat. So still making PF2 stuff, just as 3rd party.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

And getting better pay and better work-life balance.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Yes you are right that the issue is getting everything in, but as Sanityfaerie said the biggest issue is balance. Kineticist was middle of the road in PF1 being a martial character with magic abilities (equivalent to 3/4 casters) but that's exactly the type of character that Paizo refuses to make, allow, or support in PF2.

Not "refuses". They just aren't/weren't ready yet. They're working on it. Doing it right is a process.

I mean, at first the closest thing we had was the Alchemist. Then we got Summoner and Magus. Then Dark Archive came along with Thaumaturge and Psychic. It's pretty clear that they're slowly working towards that place. This isn't any kind of "refuses".

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

Magus and Summoner are now 1/2 caster not 3/4 caster. Big difference when it comes to balance.

Kineticist would be getting effectively infinite spells when Paizo is currently very into highly restricting such abilities. Just look at Witch.

The reason why Legendary games works is because they aren't Paizo. They don't really care if the class fits the balance point paizo set as its 3rd party.

It's still balanced with other classes though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
JiCi wrote:

For some reason, everytime I compare the Kineticist to Starfinder's Solarian and D&D's Warlock, people look at me weird.

They all have similar mechanics: you have a damaging power, with abilities to shape it. Isn't the Solarian Weapon the same as the Kinetic Blade, or the Warlock's Eldritch Blast the same as the Kinetic Blast?

One thing people keep saying is how complicated porting the Kineticist is, but if Paizo maganed to do something similar with the Solarian, I don't see the problem here.

Also, Kineticists could use specializations, but I swear that 99% of them back in P1E ditched the manufactured weapons and the Strength score for maximum beating and blasting.

Fwiw, it makes perfect sense to me. Although I got the impression that work on the kineticist helped inspire and inform the Solarian mechanics. The Solarian blade and kinetic blast have pretty similar scaling, for instance, if you factor in some of the other things kineticists get as they level.

I just realized that part of why I keep pressing for an arcane kineticist is that I saw a home brewed Solarian that was primal that I found downright inspired. Like, yes, give me stars and darkness; that’s just as much nature as the birds and bees.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:

Fwiw, it makes perfect sense to me. Although I got the impression that work on the kineticist helped inspire and inform the Solarian mechanics. The Solarian blade and kinetic blast have pretty similar scaling, for instance, if you factor in some of the other things kineticists get as they level.

I just realized that part of why I keep pressing for an arcane kineticist is that I saw a home brewed Solarian that was primal that I found downright inspired. Like, yes, give me stars and darkness; that’s just as much nature as the birds and bees.

I don't want a Pathfinder Solarian either, but to say that the Kineticist and the Solarian aren't similar is ridiculous. If you want another glaring similarity, since Tech Revolution, the Solarian received an alternate energy source for its Solarian technique: electricity.


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

Oh I was unclear, I DO want a Solarian, but I want it to sit squarely on Primal for its abilities and themes, pushing Primal into new territory that very little resembles Druids but is still definitely Matter and Vital essences. And then I want kineticists to be Arcane so that I have two kinds of elemental warriors with very different thematic approaches despite any mechanic overlap.

1 to 50 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Kineticist on tbe Horizon ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.