Kineticist: What is awesome about them?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 103 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Sanityfaerie wrote:
This may be true. Caster chassis tend to have daily slots. Assuming it's not just a bog-standard martial (which would be a dreadful waste in my opinion) it's going to be breaking with tradition in some fashion.

I agree a standard martial world be a waste. That said, it's not like trip isn't already one of the best control tools in the system. A martial chassis letting you do ranged trips with something like bowling infusion is all the class needs to be a useful martial option.

A caster chassis would just be suck all around. Bad saves, bad kinetic blast offense if weapons don't scale or get item bonuses, low hp made worse if burn is an option.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
gesalt wrote:

I agree a standard martial world be a waste. That said, it's not like trip isn't already one of the best control tools in the system. A martial chassis letting you do ranged trips with something like bowling infusion is all the class needs to be a useful martial option.

A caster chassis would just be suck all around. Bad saves, bad kinetic blast offense if weapons don't scale or get item bonuses, low hp made worse if burn is an option.

Let us not pretend that Paizo is bad at what they do. They are not. Cantrip+ scales just fine, and there's nothing saying that they have to have a "caster chassis" or a "martial chassis".

If the thing you care about is raw ability to pump damage downrange, then I'll agree that a caster-based kineticist is unlikley to excel at that, but I have every confidence in their ability to produce a caster-based kineticist that has a reasonable level of damage output married to a healthy block of interesting utility.

Let's try to distinguish between "It wouldn't be the thing that I personally wanted" and "it would just suck all around."

Gaulin wrote:
In my opinion, in an ideal world a lot of the things that divide people (burn, no burn, more damage, more utility, etc.) should be feats. Easier said that done, of course, but other classes have done similar.

I can imagine a number of ways that that could work for burn/no-burn, though I think it would be more likely to be "one side gets what they want, the other one side sort of gets what they want, but is still somewhat dissatisfied." I really don't see ho you'd do a take your pick on utility vs direct power, though. At best there you're going to have a compromise position.

Well... okay. I can imagine a really heavyweight class archetype that managed it, but that would be even more of a reach from what we've seen thus far than the "slotless caster" thing was to begin with.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Back in P1E, it was a class with at-will abilities and a less daunting blaster than spellcasters. It was also similar to WotC's Warlock. Finally, given the popularity of anime series and Avatar: The Last Airbender, that class was right up the players' alley.

101 to 103 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Kineticist: What is awesome about them? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.