I figured out what to do with con


Kineticist Class


Simply give the class the ability to use their con mod for ac instead of dexterity.

This would open up build diversity without overtuning damage and give even those that have no interest in class DC mechanics (people like me) a reason to go into con


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree I think that the class seriously need more damage. It's a class directly linked and focused on element. But yet it's fells weaker than any caster able to do any elemental damage, even the Psychic fells stronger due AMPs and Unleash.
So I still thing that Con is the best bases to the class to improve it's damage. I don't know if it will be like a Burn or some other think but I still think that a blaster class cannot be so numerically weaker than a Magus with Spellstrike or an elemental Druid.


YuriP wrote:

I disagree I think that the class seriously need more damage. It's a class directly linked and focused on element. But yet it's fells weaker than any caster able to do any elemental damage, even the Psychic fells stronger due AMPs and Unleash.

So I still thing that Con is the best bases to the class to improve it's damage. I don't know if it will be like a Burn or some other think but I still think that a blaster class cannot be so numerically weaker than a Magus with Spellstrike or an elemental Druid.

We disagree on where the balance for the class lays.

And they were more than just a blaster... In fact they are but the function of the games systems not a caster at all.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just add Con mod to the damage dealt by any Impulses that deal. Even the Auras that deal damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the thing I would like to see based on Con is an option to retain your gathered element after you would expend it based on a (potentially difficult) check that uses constitution.

As in "you are tough enough to force your gate to stay open".

This is sort of analogous to the Inventor having a flat check to avoid the 10 minute refractory period for unstable, and "getting to skip the action to gather" is something I'd love to be able to do more of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That... Would be pretty cool. But making it Fortitude would be too much... If it wouldn't probably be confusing for people I'd say flat d20 check, DC 20 - CON mod.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
That... Would be pretty cool. But making it Fortitude would be too much... If it wouldn't probably be confusing for people I'd say flat d20 check, DC 20 - CON mod.

Does the mechanical language not exist for "Make a DC 20 Con check?" Since I'm pretty sure I know what that means, but I also wrote the previous sentence.

Like there's a history of Strength Checks in games like this one (though I can't recall if there's been one in PF2.)


I don't think flat ability checks are in 2e. I could be wrong, but I don't remember ever seeing any.


The other CON thread had the idea of a Fort save vs a Hard (probably Very Hard) DC by level. That might work, but would also become increasingly easy to pass as you level.


I don't believe there are any flat ability checks in 2E either. 2E's checks all seem to be predicated on the notion that they will be interacting with the proficiency system, aside from flat checks, and characters don't become increasingly proficient in their ability scores. A fortitude save would be the closest analog.


Hi there. I did some testing with a lvl 1 dual gate Kineticist.

This is where I’m kinda leaning towards also. I’ll need to do some more experimenting, but I was thinking that Overflow traits should have an option (could call it Burn, I’m impartial as I never played the PF1 version) that you can do a flat DC 17 check (like the Unstable trait for Inventor).

Success: You use your overflow ability and retain your Gathered Element.
Fail: You use your overflow ability, but your gathered element is released.
Crit Fail: You fail to use your overflow ability as the energy goes beyond your control. Your gathered element is released and you take damage equal to your level.

It might have some fun risk/reward, but I’ll give it a try with a Kin that focuses on Overflow/Gather actions and see if it feels better or not.


Why does it have to be a check? Could be a save against a standard DC any time you use an overflow. On a fail you loose your element.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tunu40 wrote:

Hi there. I did some testing with a lvl 1 dual gate Kineticist.

This is where I’m kinda leaning towards also. I’ll need to do some more experimenting, but I was thinking that Overflow traits should have an option (could call it Burn, I’m impartial as I never played the PF1 version) that you can do a flat DC 17 check (like the Unstable trait for Inventor).

Success: You use your overflow ability and retain your Gathered Element.
Fail: You use your overflow ability, but your gathered element is released.
Crit Fail: You fail to use your overflow ability as the energy goes beyond your control. Your gathered element is released and you take damage equal to your level.

It might have some fun risk/reward, but I’ll give it a try with a Kin that focuses on Overflow/Gather actions and see if it feels better or not.

That sounds just awful... 20% chance to keep and a 35% to damage yourself. :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
Why does it have to be a check? Could be a save against a standard DC any time you use an overflow. On a fail you loose your element.

I feel like "roll something involving Con to keep your element when you overflow, and if you fail (but don't crit fail) you can still keep your element if you choose to do something that hurts you" is a way to both make Con meaningful and to offer something analogous to Burn.

As in "hurting yourself is not a straight math enhancer, but it will save you actions sometimes that might be meaningful." It's never mandatory (you could have just rolled better..) but it can help.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Why does it have to be a check? Could be a save against a standard DC any time you use an overflow. On a fail you loose your element.

I feel like "roll something involving Con to keep your element when you overflow, and if you fail (but don't crit fail) you can still keep your element if you choose to do something that hurts you" is a way to both make Con meaningful and to offer something analogous to Burn.

As in "hurting yourself is not a straight math enhancer, but it will save you actions sometimes that might be meaningful." It's never mandatory (you could have just rolled better..) but it can help.

I like this a lot. Drained would be the first thing that comes to mind, both hurts to have happen and also makes it harder to continue doing.


graystone wrote:
That sounds just awful... 20% chance to keep and a 35% to damage yourself. :(

Oh gosh, ya in retrospect, that is rough. Here's my last attempt, but otherwise, I guess I'll just abandon the idea.

When you use "Burn (WIP)" for an Overflow ability that deals damage, you add bonus damage equal to your CON mod. You also roll a DC 3 flat check with the following results.

Crit Success/Success: You do not release your gathered element.

Fail: You release your gathered element and take damage equal to half your level.

Number tuning is hard. :(


Ryuujin-sama wrote:
Just add Con mod to the damage dealt by any Impulses that deal. Even the Auras that deal damage.

That does nothing to address level 1 build diversity. And makes several feats as well as the new brutal trait useless. This feels like square peg round hole considering what we have been given in this play test.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In what way does adding Con to damage make Brutal useless? Brutal has absolutely zero to do with damage. Brutal lets you use Str for attack roll instead of Dex.

I also don't see how letting them use Con for AC improves build diversity. It would just mean everyone maxes Str and Con and ignores Dex entirely.


Ryuujin-sama wrote:

In what way does adding Con to damage make Brutal useless? Brutal has absolutely zero to do with damage. Brutal lets you use Str for attack roll instead of Dex.

I also don't see how letting them use Con for AC improves build diversity. It would just mean everyone maxes Str and Con and ignores Dex entirely.

No they wouldn't. Because armor uses a Dex cap not a con cap. Con to armor would only support unarmored kineticists. And they'd still have less armor.

What does con to damage solve? At the moment I see it solving nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Ryuujin-sama wrote:

In what way does adding Con to damage make Brutal useless? Brutal has absolutely zero to do with damage. Brutal lets you use Str for attack roll instead of Dex.

I also don't see how letting them use Con for AC improves build diversity. It would just mean everyone maxes Str and Con and ignores Dex entirely.

No they wouldn't. Because armor uses a Dex cap not a con cap. Con to armor would only support unarmored kineticists. And they'd still have less armor.

What does con to damage solve? At the moment I see it solving nothing.

it solves the fact the the kineticist probably doesn't deal enough damage.


Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Ryuujin-sama wrote:

In what way does adding Con to damage make Brutal useless? Brutal has absolutely zero to do with damage. Brutal lets you use Str for attack roll instead of Dex.

I also don't see how letting them use Con for AC improves build diversity. It would just mean everyone maxes Str and Con and ignores Dex entirely.

No they wouldn't. Because armor uses a Dex cap not a con cap. Con to armor would only support unarmored kineticists. And they'd still have less armor.

What does con to damage solve? At the moment I see it solving nothing.

it solves the fact the the kineticist probably doesn't deal enough damage.

I don't personally hold truck with that.

People want it to do more damage. But people want that with every play test. It's rarely actually needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Okay I have SERIOUS doubts that if they were to do a CON to AC thing, even if only Unarmored, that they wouldn't put the same cap on it as DEX to AC.

And yes one of the biggest problems people have had with the class is that the damage is anemic. Even many of the big boom level 20 abilities are comparable in damage to a cantrip, possibly used twice, but take as many actions as casting a cantrip twice.

So CON to Damage would help with that, at least a little.

I would personally like to see a blanket +CON to damage, possibly replacing STR or possibly adding to it.

Though I can see the idea of the Burn/Overload idea some have had where you take Drain or a similar max hp reducing condition to increase your damage for the rest of the day by your CON mod. Possibly combining a blanket +CON mod to damage with being able to reduce max hp for the day for even more CON mod to damage above and beyond. Able to go full glass cannon if you want to risk it.

Though I am generally not really a fan of Burn from 1e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Ryuujin-sama wrote:

In what way does adding Con to damage make Brutal useless? Brutal has absolutely zero to do with damage. Brutal lets you use Str for attack roll instead of Dex.

I also don't see how letting them use Con for AC improves build diversity. It would just mean everyone maxes Str and Con and ignores Dex entirely.

No they wouldn't. Because armor uses a Dex cap not a con cap. Con to armor would only support unarmored kineticists. And they'd still have less armor.

What does con to damage solve? At the moment I see it solving nothing.

it solves the fact the the kineticist probably doesn't deal enough damage.

I don't personally hold truck with that.

People want it to do more damage. But people want that with every play test. It's rarely actually needed.

I don't know, the last two times that was was a problem (inventor and psychic) both ended up dealing more damage. There might have been some complaints with thaumaturge, but damage definitely wasn't the main complaint (I distinctly remember some complaints that it dealt too much damage)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rage of Elements Playtest / Kineticist Class / I figured out what to do with con All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.