Let’s talk about People’s accuracy concerns


Kineticist Class

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of accuracy concerns, multiclassing this is going to be terrible for Casters unless it comes with feats to bump the Kineticist class DC. Being stuck with Trained for any damaging abilities would suck super hard, because they don't have a class DC of their own.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Onkonk wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Onkonk wrote:
Air + MAP-4 Air is more damage than Air + Water fusion blast because of elemental runes.

This isn't really true though. You get to add the striking runes. So at level 10 when you get this, an elemental rune is probably an extra D6 damage on the second attack, but the fusion blast is getting an extra 2d8.

It is better than power attack because it is not just one weapon die.

The comparision isn't 2d8 vs 1d6 (actually 2d6 because you have +2 weapons at this point).

It is MAP-0 (2d8) vs a MAP-4 (2d4 + 2 + 2d6).

Level 10 is just getting a +2 weapon rune. It is unlikely that you also have 2 elemental runes on your weapon but even if we give you that:

2 strikes with air is 2d4+2d6, with a -4 map penalty on the second attack.
a fusion strike with air and water or earth is 2d4+2d6+2d8 with no map penalty and any accuracy boosting from situational flat-footed conditions, hero points, etc, being able to be applied to the one roll. (you still get to use your elemental runes on the attack, you just don't get to double count them)


One attack for MAP-0(2d4 + 2 + 2d6 + 2d8) (weapon spec as well) vs MAP-0(2d4+2+2d6) + MAP-4(2d4+2+2d6), the difference is therefor MAP-0(2d8) vs MAP-4(2d4+2+2d6).


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Again, I was not expecting the kineticist to be so multi-target focused and I don't know that I love the design. I will try playtesting some different characters to see how it really feels.

But people are critiquing the class like the developers tried to make a single target blaster and failed. I am just not sure what getting caught up in discussing how all of the options designed to allow targeting lots of enemies fail to make the class a good single target striker is going to accomplish, other than to get your feedback dismissed because you are asking for a different class than the one that was designed.

I mean, anyone with a little bit of critical thinking can look at this kind of feedback and come to the conclusion of "this person doesn't like the direction we went for with the class". I'll admit my trust on the design team has been dwindling as of late, but I still do trust them to be smart enough to come to that conclusion. I don't think lecturing people on why they're asking for the wrong things really helps anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Onkonk wrote:
One attack for MAP-0(2d4 + 2 + 2d6 + 2d8) (weapon spec as well) vs MAP-0(2d4+2+2d6) + MAP-4(2d4+2+2d6), the difference is therefor MAP-0(2d8) vs MAP-4(2d4+2+2d6).

So basically dead even with only one elemental rune at level 10 (I see many characters without any elemental runes at level 10, much less 2). Any kind of resistance will fall in favor of the fused attack, any kind of damage bonus will favor the 2 air attacks.

It is very power attack like, you are right. I still think the edge here would be that since this is the classes best single target attack against higher level enemies, you can get the greatest benefit from being able to focus buffs and debuffs onto the one attack, and then also potentially have your hero point ready to save the day if you miss on the first attack. You can do that with the 2 attack scenario as well but the benefit from making sure your first attack lands are pretty minor.


I'm glad at least that the forums can finally come together and agree that casters can do good damage.

That aside I think some single target impulse feats that do more damage than the multitarget ones would be good and would help when fighting higher level creatures.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Air is way too low, because honestly any range value over 60' doesn't matter. I can count on 1 hand the number of times a map that large has ever been used in a game i've been part of. Whether it's a limit of the battle maps used or average table size, we just don't really see anything happen at those ranges due to practical limits.

Doesn't matter? I beg to differ! I agree that in might not come up often in some sessions, but that's a far cry from "doesn't matter!"

My sorcerer has absolutely killed it in numerous encounters thanks in no small part to her numerous long range spells and cantrips that allow her to snipe from 120 feet away or more.

You'll never convince me that it "doesn't matter" when it's the only reason the party survived some encounters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Air is way too low, because honestly any range value over 60' doesn't matter. I can count on 1 hand the number of times a map that large has ever been used in a game i've been part of. Whether it's a limit of the battle maps used or average table size, we just don't really see anything happen at those ranges due to practical limits.

Doesn't matter? I beg to differ! I agree that in might not come up often in some sessions, but that's a far cry from "doesn't matter!"

My sorcerer has absolutely killed it in numerous encounters thanks in no small part to her numerous long range spells and cantrips that allow her to snipe from 120 feet away or more.

You'll never convince me that it "doesn't matter" when it's the only reason the party survived some encounters.

To me the "it doesn't matter point" comes from 100ft in advance. In my last game 2 PC died because 30 and 60ft effects had not enough reach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Unicore I really applaud your etiquette during this playtest. You do a very good job of playing devil's advocate, of pointing out what the class as it is now does well. And keeping a cool head while discussing and really considering what others are saying. Kudos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the "long range doesn't matter" is a thing of it having diminishing return and increasing levels of "why bother". Yeah it can be useful in very specific situations, but those situations are rare and unlikely to present themselves. You would have to force it for it to be the most useful, but then you would make it harder for the party to do their thing (given that most parties have a core of melee characters as the main damage dealers).

So its fine that long range deals less damage then melee. But it is not fine for range to be just 1d4. Just like its not fine for melee to be just 1d4.


roquepo wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Air is way too low, because honestly any range value over 60' doesn't matter. I can count on 1 hand the number of times a map that large has ever been used in a game i've been part of. Whether it's a limit of the battle maps used or average table size, we just don't really see anything happen at those ranges due to practical limits.

Doesn't matter? I beg to differ! I agree that in might not come up often in some sessions, but that's a far cry from "doesn't matter!"

My sorcerer has absolutely killed it in numerous encounters thanks in no small part to her numerous long range spells and cantrips that allow her to snipe from 120 feet away or more.

You'll never convince me that it "doesn't matter" when it's the only reason the party survived some encounters.

To me the "it doesn't matter point" comes from 100ft in advance. In my last game 2 PC died because 30 and 60ft effects had not enough reach.

Yes, all it takes is a single fight with a dragon with a fly speed of 120' doing flyby attacks to appreciate how nice a 120' range is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The range definitely is good, but I would definitely play air blast with dual or universal gate to have something better at close range. Air blast is one of the better use cases for fusion blast at long range with dual gate at the least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Gaulin wrote:
Unicore I really applaud your etiquette during this playtest. You do a very good job of playing devil's advocate, of pointing out what the class as it is now does well. And keeping a cool head while discussing and really considering what others are saying. Kudos.

yeah, i have found ive basically never agreed with unicore in a single playtest, but they have always done a good job presenting themselves in a pretty levelheaded way


Temperans wrote:

I think the "long range doesn't matter" is a thing of it having diminishing return and increasing levels of "why bother". Yeah it can be useful in very specific situations, but those situations are rare and unlikely to present themselves. You would have to force it for it to be the most useful, but then you would make it harder for the party to do their thing (given that most parties have a core of melee characters as the main damage dealers).

So its fine that long range deals less damage then melee. But it is not fine for range to be just 1d4. Just like its not fine for melee to be just 1d4.

I also find 1d4 to be rather low, but that doesn't mean that its 120 ft is nothing important.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
roquepo wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I think the "long range doesn't matter" is a thing of it having diminishing return and increasing levels of "why bother". Yeah it can be useful in very specific situations, but those situations are rare and unlikely to present themselves. You would have to force it for it to be the most useful, but then you would make it harder for the party to do their thing (given that most parties have a core of melee characters as the main damage dealers).

So its fine that long range deals less damage then melee. But it is not fine for range to be just 1d4. Just like its not fine for melee to be just 1d4.

I also find 1d4 to be rather low, but that doesn't mean that its 120 ft is nothing important.

the bigger issue is that an air kineticist in melee is ALSO using a d4, Granted it is a one handed agile range weapon, which is very unique but im not sure that translates to good with a d4 damage die


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
roquepo wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I think the "long range doesn't matter" is a thing of it having diminishing return and increasing levels of "why bother". Yeah it can be useful in very specific situations, but those situations are rare and unlikely to present themselves. You would have to force it for it to be the most useful, but then you would make it harder for the party to do their thing (given that most parties have a core of melee characters as the main damage dealers).

So its fine that long range deals less damage then melee. But it is not fine for range to be just 1d4. Just like its not fine for melee to be just 1d4.

I also find 1d4 to be rather low, but that doesn't mean that its 120 ft is nothing important.
the bigger issue is that an air kineticist in melee is ALSO using a d4, Granted it is a one handed agile range weapon, which is very unique but im not sure that translates to good with a d4 damage die

The other ranged agile weapon that exists is the Shuriken (Which applies full STR on hit), and as a main weapon I'm pretty sure the only home it has is a Flurry ranged built for a synergistic party.

1d4 in general is just too low for any class without a hefty damage boost.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
roquepo wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
roquepo wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I think the "long range doesn't matter" is a thing of it having diminishing return and increasing levels of "why bother". Yeah it can be useful in very specific situations, but those situations are rare and unlikely to present themselves. You would have to force it for it to be the most useful, but then you would make it harder for the party to do their thing (given that most parties have a core of melee characters as the main damage dealers).

So its fine that long range deals less damage then melee. But it is not fine for range to be just 1d4. Just like its not fine for melee to be just 1d4.

I also find 1d4 to be rather low, but that doesn't mean that its 120 ft is nothing important.
the bigger issue is that an air kineticist in melee is ALSO using a d4, Granted it is a one handed agile range weapon, which is very unique but im not sure that translates to good with a d4 damage die

The other ranged agile weapon that exists is the Shuriken (Which applies full STR on hit), and as a main weapon I'm pretty sure the only home it has is a Flurry ranged built for a synergistic party.

1d4 in general is just too low for any class without a hefty damage boost.

There's also the air repeater and the agile thrown weapons. The advanced chakram is even a d6.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
dmerceless wrote:

A niche of multitarget attack rolls? Really? I'm sometimes impressed by the lengths people will go to defend the current design of things. "Don't spread your attack rolls around unless you kill the first enemy" is like PF2 Introductory Class. And I think you're greatly overvaluing agile. A +1 on a second attack, that already has a low accuracy and basically no chance to crit outside of a nat 20, is not that valuable. Neither is a +2 on a third attack. It's not nothing, but it's incredibly minor. So minor in fact that attacking someone with 0/-4/-8 or 0/-5/-10 with a weapon that has one die size higher will net you basically the same damage. The best thing agile does is making attack riders and presse effects more likely to hit, and Kineticist is not particularly rich in either commodity.

Chain Blast is neat, but odds are you're not hitting more than 2 enemies with it, and incredibly rarely more than 3. Not bad, but this is very far from being a niche-defining ability. The reason AoEs can be good is reliably targeting such a high number of enemies at the same time that you'll get a good total value. This is not that. And for the Overflow effects... well they're basically cantrips with slightly better areas, worse DCs and that cost 3-4 actions instead of 2.

Again, I was not expecting the kineticist to be so multi-target focused and I don't know that I love the design. I will try playtesting some different characters to see how it really feels.

But people are critiquing the class like the developers tried to make a single target blaster and failed. I am just not sure what getting caught up in discussing how all of the options designed to allow targeting lots of enemies fail to make the class a good single target striker is going to accomplish, other than to get your feedback dismissed because you are asking for a different class than the one that was designed.

It's excellent feedback for the designers to decide whether or not their vision/basic assumption of the class is something that needs to be changed. "We made a multi target machine gun" answered with "I don't want a multi target machine gun" leading to "so are we sticking to our guns and tweaking or making it different?" Perfectly valid discourse for the devs to hear I think, regardless of how they respond


aobst128 wrote:
roquepo wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
roquepo wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I think the "long range doesn't matter" is a thing of it having diminishing return and increasing levels of "why bother". Yeah it can be useful in very specific situations, but those situations are rare and unlikely to present themselves. You would have to force it for it to be the most useful, but then you would make it harder for the party to do their thing (given that most parties have a core of melee characters as the main damage dealers).

So its fine that long range deals less damage then melee. But it is not fine for range to be just 1d4. Just like its not fine for melee to be just 1d4.

I also find 1d4 to be rather low, but that doesn't mean that its 120 ft is nothing important.
the bigger issue is that an air kineticist in melee is ALSO using a d4, Granted it is a one handed agile range weapon, which is very unique but im not sure that translates to good with a d4 damage die

The other ranged agile weapon that exists is the Shuriken (Which applies full STR on hit), and as a main weapon I'm pretty sure the only home it has is a Flurry ranged built for a synergistic party.

1d4 in general is just too low for any class without a hefty damage boost.

There's also the air repeater and the agile thrown weapons. The advanced chakram is even a d6.

Since they lack reload 0, it is hard for me to think about most thrown weapons as "ranged weapons". I missed the air repeater completely, though. Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My only real accuracy concern when it comes to strikes is no expert until level 7. Levels 5-6 won’t be pleasant. Having a 16 in your striking stat really isn’t a problem though as we’ve seen from thaumaturge and inventor.

The class dc is a bigger issue though. It needs to scale higher and maybe even a bit faster. I’ve ran 80 combats with the kineticist so far. 10 combats at each level levels 1-8 and honestly I’m in love with the class. It just needs a few tweaks to really make it shine. I actually have a small list of things I’d like to see changed and class dc scaling is one.


Aklerion wrote:


The class dc is a bigger issue though. It needs to scale higher and maybe even a bit faster. I’ve ran 80 combats with the kineticist so far. 10 combats at each level levels 1-8 and honestly I’m in love with the class. It just needs a few tweaks to really make it shine. I actually have a small list of things I’d like to see changed and class dc scaling is one.

As an aside, how the hell did you run 80 combats in what, 33 hours? I'm not doubting you, that just seems logistically difficult


roquepo wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I think the "long range doesn't matter" is a thing of it having diminishing return and increasing levels of "why bother". Yeah it can be useful in very specific situations, but those situations are rare and unlikely to present themselves. You would have to force it for it to be the most useful, but then you would make it harder for the party to do their thing (given that most parties have a core of melee characters as the main damage dealers).

So its fine that long range deals less damage then melee. But it is not fine for range to be just 1d4. Just like its not fine for melee to be just 1d4.

I also find 1d4 to be rather low, but that doesn't mean that its 120 ft is nothing important.

Unfortunately, it's a d4 for an entirely consistent reason. It seems their baseline for blasts was d8 + 1 trait. Water and Earth both have that. Fire adds Finesse, so it gets bumped down to d6. Wind adds versatile B, so it gets bumped down to d4. Pretty much exactly like weapons.


Pronate11 wrote:
Aklerion wrote:


The class dc is a bigger issue though. It needs to scale higher and maybe even a bit faster. I’ve ran 80 combats with the kineticist so far. 10 combats at each level levels 1-8 and honestly I’m in love with the class. It just needs a few tweaks to really make it shine. I actually have a small list of things I’d like to see changed and class dc scaling is one.
As an aside, how the hell did you run 80 combats in what, 33 hours? I'm not doubting you, that just seems logistically difficult

Not saying this is what they did, but you could just make a tool to automate it ala whiteroom combat.

But really if you're just running some stuff yourself it's much faster than going around a table.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kekkres wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
Unicore I really applaud your etiquette during this playtest. You do a very good job of playing devil's advocate, of pointing out what the class as it is now does well. And keeping a cool head while discussing and really considering what others are saying. Kudos.
yeah, i have found ive basically never agreed with unicore in a single playtest, but they have always done a good job presenting themselves in a pretty levelheaded way

Thank you both. I try very hard to understand what is going on with a play test class' design and why it would be designed that way. Then help folks express their issues in a way that will be useful but also within a context of what the game itself is designed around. I am very aware that the kind of play styles I seem to like don't always line up with other players on these forums.

I generally prefer single target strikers that can exploit the games crit mechanics, because I love how easy it is to start pushing numbers in your favor. But we have a lot of classes like that at this point (fighter, Magus, Gun Slinger). I get wanting to explore something different.

The class that people seem to keep asking for in play test after play test is fighters again, but with some kind of blasting. I didn't think we were going to get that, but maybe some folks will prefer the Legendary games Kineticist because it seems in that general direction.

Right now, this Kineticist seems to have some issues against higher level enemies and I know that is the thing that many players get most worked up about. It is not an unreasonable concern.

But increasing the general accuracy on a class that can regularly target 3 people with up to 4 attacks (and eventually 5 creatures) it makes for a very fine line of what will push things over the top.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
Gaulin wrote:
Unicore I really applaud your etiquette during this playtest. You do a very good job of playing devil's advocate, of pointing out what the class as it is now does well. And keeping a cool head while discussing and really considering what others are saying. Kudos.
yeah, i have found ive basically never agreed with unicore in a single playtest, but they have always done a good job presenting themselves in a pretty levelheaded way

Thank you both. I try very hard to understand what is going on with a play test class' design and why it would be designed that way. Then help folks express their issues in a way that will be useful but also within a context of what the game itself is designed around. I am very aware that the kind of play styles I seem to like don't always line up with other players on these forums.

I generally prefer single target strikers that can exploit the games crit mechanics, because I love how easy it is to start pushing numbers in your favor. But we have a lot of classes like that at this point (fighter, Magus, Gun Slinger). I get wanting to explore something different.

The class that people seem to keep asking for in play test after play test is fighters again, but with some kind of blasting. I didn't think we were going to get that, but maybe some folks will prefer the Legendary games Kineticist because it seems in that general direction.

Right now, this Kineticist seems to have some issues against higher level enemies and I know that is the thing that many players get most worked up about. It is not an unreasonable concern.

But increasing the general accuracy on a class that can regularly target 3 people with up to 4 attacks (and eventually 5 creatures) it makes for a very fine line of what will push things over the top.

i dont mind if its not a fighter crit machine i just dont want to feel like i am useless against 3+ severe bosses that will basically never fail their saves, casters can switch to buffs or more battlefield controlly stuff, martials can trip, grapple and flank to proc flat footed and land hard crits with their own mechanics such as rage or sneak attack. The kineticist? Well for one im not even sure if they benefit from flanking, i vauguly recall touch spells dont, though i may be wrong, but overmore, they are just sitting there with an attack that is basically just a unique martial weapon, and impulses that are pathetic with only one target in veiw. Just give me SOMETHING to do in this situation that is not "invest in intimidation and athletics" something every class can be using to contribute


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Melee Blasts are still melee attacks so they should benefit from flanking. I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pronate11 wrote:
Aklerion wrote:


The class dc is a bigger issue though. It needs to scale higher and maybe even a bit faster. I’ve ran 80 combats with the kineticist so far. 10 combats at each level levels 1-8 and honestly I’m in love with the class. It just needs a few tweaks to really make it shine. I actually have a small list of things I’d like to see changed and class dc scaling is one.
As an aside, how the hell did you run 80 combats in what, 33 hours? I'm not doubting you, that just seems logistically difficult

Well I didn’t have work and I started testing as soon as I’d read the class. I have a ton of 2e experience so it wasn’t difficult. I built a kineticist and then used several characters I have built to run a party. I put them up against a number of different monsters of varying levels in different circumstances. I used a program to roll hundreds of each dice so I wouldn’t spend time rolling them and could just reference the next number on the list. My roommate helped with that part by organizing the lists by dice type and printing them out.

From there it was pretty quick. Low level fights are super swingy and quick so levels 1-3 went by extremely fast. And the characters I used are all characters I’ve used extensively so I knew the combat patterns without needing to take a lot of time to think.

Also I don’t sleep much so that helped.

My tests aren’t perfectly accurate of course. 1 person running an entire combat can be very different from a party. I can synergize more and there’s always the potential for bias. But it does give me a pretty good representation of the damages and effectiveness of things even with the flaws. I do plan on testing with actual people soon I just wanted to get some data for everything out the gate.

Off topic this is actually very similar to how I balance encounters when I’m a dm. If I want to see if a homebrew monster I made is too much or if I’ve put my players in an unwinnable situation I take all their character sheets and run the combat 10-20 times and see what happens.

You’ll find after you do this a bit it goes fast. Combats are much quicker without table talk, dice rolling, time spent thinking about tactics, monologues, RP, etc.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Air is way too low, because honestly any range value over 60' doesn't matter. I can count on 1 hand the number of times a map that large has ever been used in a game i've been part of. Whether it's a limit of the battle maps used or average table size, we just don't really see anything happen at those ranges due to practical limits.

Doesn't matter? I beg to differ! I agree that in might not come up often in some sessions, but that's a far cry from "doesn't matter!"

My sorcerer has absolutely killed it in numerous encounters thanks in no small part to her numerous long range spells and cantrips that allow her to snipe from 120 feet away or more.

You'll never convince me that it "doesn't matter" when it's the only reason the party survived some encounters.

frankly I'm surprised that you had a map big enough for that. I've gone through a lot of PFS and a few APs, and they don't seem common enough for the range to make the d4 seem worth it in any way. It just doesn't seem to be the way the game is typically played - and because of that I don't really think it's worth designing around to the extent that we see a d4 for someone's primary damage ability.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to keep the Air range at 120' since that makes Maelstrom Blast extremely hilarious.


I'd just like to note that the range isn't the only, or probably even the main, reason it's at d4. It just plain has more traits.

Personally I'd be down to get rid of Versatile Bludgeoning for a d6.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:

I'd just like to note that the range isn't the only, or probably even the main, reason it's at d4. It just plain has more traits.

Personally I'd be down to get rid of Versatile Bludgeoning for a d6.

Being stuck with slashing is more annoying to me than having a D4. Both d4s and D6s are pretty much shut down with any kind of resistance.

As far as the range, there are some big maps in APs, and I am hopeful that will continue. There are encounter sites in multiple books of AoA where an areokineticist might be laying down attacks on a 5 enemies or saving throw attacks against even more.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Make no mistake, I wouldn't mind a little bit of a damage hike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know...this has a lot of things that would trigger Conducting...


Guntermench wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

You can have martial equivalent accuracy, Wich they do. Just stick your secondary to 16 it isn't that bad.

Or caster equivalent DC.

I guess the community has to decide wich way to go

Fighter and Gunslinger didn't get stuck with Expert class DC.

Let's not make every new class the exception to get rule. Fighters thing is only combat. And they get legendary on one weapon barring specific feats.

Gunslinger gets it with only guns

Maybe we remove dual and universalist for it then?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:
Melee Blasts are still melee attacks so they should benefit from flanking. I think.

mkay, the exact qualitied of blasts are a bit hard to sus out from that wall of text talking about how they are unarmed attack like but also spell like


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Melee Blasts are still melee attacks so they should benefit from flanking. I think.
mkay, the exact qualitied of blasts are a bit hard to sus out from that wall of text talking about how they are unarmed attack like but also spell like

Pretty sure melee spell attacks should also benefit from flanking. Is it melee? Is it an attack roll? Flanking.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
You know...this has a lot of things that would trigger Conducting...

Not very many, as it turns out.

Electricity is only on two air abilities, and they require 2 or 3 actions and are overflow, so you could never actually use them, then gather again, in order to then make an attack that could use Conducting.

Winter's Clutch and Sea Glass Guardian auras are two actions without overflow, so you could activate them and do an elemental blast benefiting from conducting. Everything else is 2-3 actions with overflow.

It obviously does work well for fire, even gathering energy will charge it up for a pair of subsequent elemental blasts. Fire/water dual or universal could find it a decent choice. But a single static rune that always works and can be used two or three times per round might be better.


Martialmasters wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

You can have martial equivalent accuracy, Wich they do. Just stick your secondary to 16 it isn't that bad.

Or caster equivalent DC.

I guess the community has to decide wich way to go

Fighter and Gunslinger didn't get stuck with Expert class DC.

Let's not make every new class the exception to get rule. Fighters thing is only combat. And they get legendary on one weapon barring specific feats.

Gunslinger gets it with only guns

Maybe we remove dual and universalist for it then?

Speaking of Fighters.

Odds they're the best at using Elemental Blast? Most of the feats for it seem to be pretty early, other than Chain.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

You can have martial equivalent accuracy, Wich they do. Just stick your secondary to 16 it isn't that bad.

Or caster equivalent DC.

I guess the community has to decide wich way to go

Fighter and Gunslinger didn't get stuck with Expert class DC.

Let's not make every new class the exception to get rule. Fighters thing is only combat. And they get legendary on one weapon barring specific feats.

Gunslinger gets it with only guns

Maybe we remove dual and universalist for it then?

Speaking of Fighters.

Odds they're the best at using Elemental Blast? Most of the feats for it seem to be pretty early, other than Chain.

Blasts are not a weapon group so the fighter is limited essentially to regular martial proficiency with them from level 5 onward. So maybe for 2 levels?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They use your unarmed proficiency, which a Fighter can boost by choosing brawling, no?

Elemental Blast wrote:
Though it’s not actually an unarmed attack, an elemental blast uses your proficiency with unarmed attacks
Fighter Weapon Mastery wrote:
Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks in that group

Brawling includes Fist, so unarmed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:
They use your unarmed proficiency, which a Fighter can boost by choosing brawling, no?

They use your unarmed proficiency but they do not become brawling weapons. That is why they have their own unique crit specializations. They belong to no weapon group.

Blasts are unusable with almost all martial class feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:

They use your unarmed proficiency, which a Fighter can boost by choosing brawling, no?

Elemental Blast wrote:
Though it’s not actually an unarmed attack, an elemental blast uses your proficiency with unarmed attacks
Fighter Weapon Mastery wrote:
Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks in that group
Brawling includes Fist, so unarmed.

unarmed and brawling are completely seperate, for instance foxfire is an unarmed attack in the sling catagory, while brass knuckles are a weapon attack in the brawling catagory, blasts are an unarmed attack with no catagory that have a class feature that specifically gives them the crit specialization that having a catagory of their own normaly would


Fair enough.


Guntermench wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

You can have martial equivalent accuracy, Wich they do. Just stick your secondary to 16 it isn't that bad.

Or caster equivalent DC.

I guess the community has to decide wich way to go

Fighter and Gunslinger didn't get stuck with Expert class DC.

Let's not make every new class the exception to get rule. Fighters thing is only combat. And they get legendary on one weapon barring specific feats.

Gunslinger gets it with only guns

Maybe we remove dual and universalist for it then?

Speaking of Fighters.

Odds they're the best at using Elemental Blast? Most of the feats for it seem to be pretty early, other than Chain.

This is different from... Any other class with a supplemental attack? Monk? Investigator? Etc. Heck most classes out damage a monk if they take monk dedication for flurry of blows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A fighter could pick up martial artist at some point to make blasts legendary.


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

So a fighter has to take a minimum of 4 feats to be able to get blasts and use them at their highest proficiency. At that investment let them have it. They can pick up barrage blast for a 5th feat but would be spending their 20th level feat on getting chain blast. Blasts still don't work with any fighter feats, not even point blank shot.

It is a pretty false flag concern that fighters would be better with blasts than Kineticists.


Unicore wrote:

So a fighter has to take a minimum of 4 feats to be able to get blasts and use them at their highest proficiency. At that investment let them have it. They can pick up barrage blast for a 5th feat but would be spending their 20th level feat on getting chain blast. Blasts still don't work with any fighter feats, not even point blank shot.

It is a pretty false flag concern that fighters would be better with blasts than Kineticists.

I don't think they will be. Just pointing out how they could work with them. Mainly, I could see it as a choice to add a range option that uses strength that a fighter might appreciate.

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rage of Elements Playtest / Kineticist Class / Let’s talk about People’s accuracy concerns All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.