I don't think that's true though? Almost every overflow blast seems to pack a battlefield control effect of some kind of another.Yeah and most of them look like they do sacrifice something for it. The ones with the best damage/scaling that aren't 3+1 actions and very high level have either no utility or a little crit fail rider at best (Tidal Hands, Blazing Wave, etc).
By that logic, the martials sacrifice something too. Almost everything you named costs actions or only triggers on a crit. Sacrificing a third strike isn't a big deal, but there's certainly a lot of other things you can do with that action.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's true though? Almost every overflow blast seems to pack a battlefield control effect of some kind of another.Yeah and most of them look like they do sacrifice something for it. The ones with the best damage/scaling that aren't 3+1 actions and very high level have either no utility or a little crit fail rider at best (Tidal Hands, Blazing Wave, etc).By that logic, the martials sacrifice something too. Almost everything you named costs actions or only triggers on a crit. Sacrificing a third strike isn't a big deal, but there's certainly a lot of other things you can do with that action.
Do many martials pay three, really four, actions for one attack all that often?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very sad to me that so many want kineticist to be stripped of it's unique 'at will' gameplay style and become another martial with focus spells. The flavor and mechanics of the class are great as is, in my opinion. Some lower end damage impulses could use a boost, but 1d6/2 levels isn't bad at all.I do NOT want kineticist to be another martial with focus spells.
But the mechanics here aren't working either. The damage is abysmally low for a blaster which is what most people want to see - a functional blaster.
I am inclined to agree because it is not anything new in the design space, but it also works and may, unfortunately, be the best solution. However I hope we get something other than that if at all possible
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very sad to me that so many want kineticist to be stripped of it's unique 'at will' gameplay style and become another martial with focus spells. The flavor and mechanics of the class are great as is, in my opinion. Some lower end damage impulses could use a boost, but 1d6/2 levels isn't bad at all.I do NOT want kineticist to be another martial with focus spells.
But the mechanics here aren't working either. The damage is abysmally low for a blaster which is what most people want to see - a functional blaster.
That's basically how I feel. While I do think pew pew blaster with focus spells is the easiest way to achieve what I want, and the one least prone to disastrous failure, it's not the only way. Ultimately, I barely care how it's done. I want Kineticist to be a class I can point out to my dozens of friends and fellow players who are sad about the poor damage potential of mage-flavored characters in this game and say "play this!". If there's a way to achieve that without cutting the other options, great. If there's not, cut them, I'm willing to make that sacrifice. Kineticist could throw bananas at people and I'd be happy as long as it fills the ever-gaping hole of "the blaster mage" that the game currently has.
Do many martials pay three, really four, actions for one attack all that often?I don't think that's true though? Almost every overflow blast seems to pack a battlefield control effect of some kind of another.Yeah and most of them look like they do sacrifice something for it. The ones with the best damage/scaling that aren't 3+1 actions and very high level have either no utility or a little crit fail rider at best (Tidal Hands, Blazing Wave, etc).By that logic, the martials sacrifice something too. Almost everything you named costs actions or only triggers on a crit. Sacrificing a third strike isn't a big deal, but there's certainly a lot of other things you can do with that action.
They certainly do when it comes to AoE, especially for at will things. Whirlwind Attack and Impossible Flurry are 3 actions and setting them up (positioning, hunt pretty) will often cost 1. Two action abilities like Dragon's Breath and Explosion also require positioning to maximize. You've also got ki blast for monks, which has a variable action cost but requires 3 if you want to maximize, and again, positioning is important with cones.
At least most of the 3 action overflows are bursts, which rarely require you to move. Emanations, cones, and even lines are trickier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very sad to me that so many want kineticist to be stripped of it's unique 'at will' gameplay style and become another martial with focus spells. The flavor and mechanics of the class are great as is, in my opinion. Some lower end damage impulses could use a boost, but 1d6/2 levels isn't bad at all.I do NOT want kineticist to be another martial with focus spells.
But the mechanics here aren't working either. The damage is abysmally low for a blaster which is what most people want to see - a functional blaster.
I don't understand why you think the class was designed to be a single target striker (which seems to be your definition of a functional blaster). Looking at the narrative lore associated with this playtest and the mechanics, it seems like battle field controller with some Multi-target damage was the clear design goal.
I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that if you are unsatisfied with the evocation wizard, psychic and magus as magical strikers, PF2 is never going to make the class you are looking for.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that if you are unsatisfied with the evocation wizard, psychic and magus as magical strikers, PF2 is never going to make the class you are looking for.
Oh Magus is quite fine as a damage dealer. Quiiite fine. But it still uses weapons/puncbes. It doesn't feel like a mage. What my fellas and I want is a class that does damage like a Magus but is a pure magic user, not a gish.
Evocation Wizard and Psychic are quite bad at single target damage.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why you think the class was designed to be a single target striker (which seems to be your definition of a functional blaster). Looking at the narrative lore associated with this playtest and the mechanics, it seems like battle field controller with some Multi-target damage was the clear design goal.It's very sad to me that so many want kineticist to be stripped of it's unique 'at will' gameplay style and become another martial with focus spells. The flavor and mechanics of the class are great as is, in my opinion. Some lower end damage impulses could use a boost, but 1d6/2 levels isn't bad at all.I do NOT want kineticist to be another martial with focus spells.
But the mechanics here aren't working either. The damage is abysmally low for a blaster which is what most people want to see - a functional blaster.
because battlefield control and multi target damage do not matter in the least when the hardest encounters in the game are 3 or 4+ level solo bosses, and and having low damage attacks and aoes, no matter how at will they are does basically nothing to assist there, and, honestly speaking, isnt even especially impressive in big mook fights. Sure you can toast 7 guys and get a really big total damage number if you are fighting that many mooks they will be well below your level and end up getting crit to hell and back by your party anyway.
Aoe spells are designed to be supplemented with all manner of other stuff, hense the common mantra of "every caster a generalist" we already have the option to play sorcerer, pick fireball as signature spell and throw out 12 of them per day at level 12, doing vastly more damage than a kineticist of the same level, and happily throw in the odd fear or slow when there not enough enemies to fireball, and that will get them through an adventuring day, we already have that option and we do not do it because that is not an especially valuable playstyle.
I guess that's part of what I don't understand. Why would making kineticist another martial with focus spells, make it the blaster everyone wants?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very sad to me that so many want kineticist to be stripped of it's unique 'at will' gameplay style and become another martial with focus spells. The flavor and mechanics of the class are great as is, in my opinion. Some lower end damage impulses could use a boost, but 1d6/2 levels isn't bad at all.
IMO the alternative isn't a martial with focus spell but a focus spell's martial.
We don't have anything closer to this. The more closer that we have is the Monk but for it's just complementary to it's unarmed strikes it's not like monks are focus martials.
When I propose focus spell I'm including focus cantrips as alternative to 2-action Impulses (don't misunderstand, they already are basically the same thing, Impulses are focus cantrips with "you have gather the X element and have it at hand" requirements) and to change Overflow to focus points to solve the currently action economy problems and weak Overflow Impulses damages and progression. This would allow to use stronger spells and even to cast them sequentially without problems. And allows a better integration with archetypes and items because use an already existing and well tested mechanic.
I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.
Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.
So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?
It's very sad to me that so many want kineticist to be stripped of it's unique 'at will' gameplay style and become another martial with focus spells. The flavor and mechanics of the class are great as is, in my opinion. Some lower end damage impulses could use a boost, but 1d6/2 levels isn't bad at all.IMO the alternative isn't a martial with focus spell but a focus spell's martial.
We don't have anything closer to this. The more closer that we have is the Monk but for it's just complementary to it's unarmed strikes it's not like monks are focus martials.
When I propose focus spell I'm including focus cantrips as alternative to 2-action Impulses (don't misunderstand, they already are basically the same thing, Impulses are focus cantrips with "you have gather the X element and have it at hand" requirements) and to change Overflow to focus points to solve the currently action economy problems and weak Overflow Impulses damages and progression. This would allow to use stronger spells and even to cast them sequentially without problems. And allows a better integration with archetypes and items because use an already existing and well tested mechanic.
But you're not going to get focus spells and stronger than current focus spells. Like max 2d6/level. So why is that different than martial that has focus spells, or even multiclasses? I guess I just don't see the difference and would like something new
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.
Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.
So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?
my goalpost is rogue sneak damage, rogue is the most "out of combat utility at will" martial class we have, and while the nature of their utility not exactly the same, i feel like its a good starting point,
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.
Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.
So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?
and even then, those pale in comparison to a halfling rogue archer - which is about where i'd want a class to be for damage requiring setup.
Fighters can use 3 actions to crit on a hit and stun themself.Do many martials pay three, really four, actions for one attack all that often?I don't think that's true though? Almost every overflow blast seems to pack a battlefield control effect of some kind of another.Yeah and most of them look like they do sacrifice something for it. The ones with the best damage/scaling that aren't 3+1 actions and very high level have either no utility or a little crit fail rider at best (Tidal Hands, Blazing Wave, etc).By that logic, the martials sacrifice something too. Almost everything you named costs actions or only triggers on a crit. Sacrificing a third strike isn't a big deal, but there's certainly a lot of other things you can do with that action.
Now compare the damages and hit chance of 3-actions Overflow Impulses with Overwhelming Blow with Deadly-d12.
That's basically how I feel. While I do think pew pew blaster with focus spells is the easiest way to achieve what I want, and the one least prone to disastrous failure, it's not the only way. Ultimately, I barely care how it's done. I want Kineticist to be a class I can point out to my dozens of friends and fellow players who are sad about the poor damage potential of mage-flavored characters in this game and say "play this!". If there's a way to achieve that without cutting the other options, great. If there's not, cut them, I'm willing to make that sacrifice. Kineticist could throw bananas at people and I'd be happy as long as it fills the ever-gaping hole of "the blaster mage" that the game currently has.It's very sad to me that so many want kineticist to be stripped of it's unique 'at will' gameplay style and become another martial with focus spells. The flavor and mechanics of the class are great as is, in my opinion. Some lower end damage impulses could use a boost, but 1d6/2 levels isn't bad at all.I do NOT want kineticist to be another martial with focus spells.
But the mechanics here aren't working either. The damage is abysmally low for a blaster which is what most people want to see - a functional blaster.
That's exactly my viewpoint. I'm also prefer a unlimited Kineticist but more than this I want it being stronger! If the designers thinks that's not possible to do a stronger blaster with unlimited shots so make then with focus spells instead but please make a stronger blaster that's not limited by spellslots per day.
I don't want damage comparable to a striker. But I would like to have a bit more damage when blasting and actually be useful when blasting.I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.
Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.
So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?
Yeah, but that is still too vague. You aren't establishing numbers, nor whether you want single target or multi-target blasting.
my goalpost is rogue sneak damage, rogue is the most "out of combat utility at will" martial class we have, and while the nature of their utility not exactly the same, i feel like its a good starting point,I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.
Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.
So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?
I'm reluctant to use rogue as a benchmark because their damage is situational, especially at range. Unless you're going dread striker/dirge of doom (and no, gestalt, not every party needs to have that) you're not consistently getting sneak attack out of a bow multiple times a round. If you are playing with a party that consistently gives grapples or frightens, you basically have the best DPR in the game.
I think consistentcy is what people want, otherwise they'd be satisfyed with True Strike Disintegrate/Acid Arrow shenanigans.
Rogue damage is about a Champion with a greatsword, so on Kineticist that is around 2 extra damage per weapon dice on a strike with the current blasts.
my goalpost is rogue sneak damage, rogue is the most "out of combat utility at will" martial class we have, and while the nature of their utility not exactly the same, i feel like its a good starting point,I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.
Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.
So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?
I'm reluctant to use rogue as a benchmark because their damage is situational, especially at range. Unless you're going dread striker/dirge of doom (and no, gestalt, not every party needs to have that) you're not consistently getting sneak attack out of a bow multiple times a round. If you are playing with a party that consistently gives grapples or frightens, you basically have the best DPR in the game.
I think consistentcy is what people want, otherwise they'd be satisfyed with True Strike...
i was more talking as an average over the course of a day than an exact model, Rogues are compitant at damage but even if they always have sneak on they never come close to the average of a barbarian or fighter
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why you think the class was designed to be a single target striker (which seems to be your definition of a functional blaster). Looking at the narrative lore associated with this playtest and the mechanics, it seems like battle field controller with some Multi-target damage was the clear design goal.It's very sad to me that so many want kineticist to be stripped of it's unique 'at will' gameplay style and become another martial with focus spells. The flavor and mechanics of the class are great as is, in my opinion. Some lower end damage impulses could use a boost, but 1d6/2 levels isn't bad at all.I do NOT want kineticist to be another martial with focus spells.
But the mechanics here aren't working either. The damage is abysmally low for a blaster which is what most people want to see - a functional blaster.
because battlefield control and multi target damage do not matter in the least when the hardest encounters in the game are 3 or 4+ level solo bosses, and and having low damage attacks and aoes, no matter how at will they are does basically nothing to assist there, and, honestly speaking, isnt even especially impressive in big mook fights. Sure you can toast 7 guys and get a really big total damage number if you are fighting that many mooks they will be well below your level and end up getting crit to hell and back by your party anyway.
Aoe spells are designed to be supplemented with all manner of other stuff, hense the common mantra of "every caster a generalist" we already have the option to play sorcerer, pick fireball as signature spell and throw out 12 of them per day at level 12, doing vastly more damage than a kineticist of the same level, and happily throw in the odd fear or slow when there not enough enemies to fireball, and that will get them through an adventuring day, we already have that option and we do not do it because that is not an especially valuable playstyle.
I agree about AoE. In practice when I put a lot of minion weaklings no matter if they are in 16 completing a extreme encounter. They are no match against single target DDs. They are quickly killed one by one, suffers from a lot of crits and rarely hit any PC and even when they hit their damages usually is low for that level.
So IMO AoE is far from necessary. It's only useful to speedup some battles and to kill swarms. But aren't that useful against strong opponents.That's why AoE classes aren't unattractive in PF2.
But you're not going to get focus spells and stronger than current focus spells. Like max 2d6/level. So why is that different than martial that has focus spells, or even multiclasses? I guess I just don't see the difference and would like something newIt's very sad to me that so many want kineticist to be stripped of it's unique 'at will' gameplay style and become another martial with focus spells. The flavor and mechanics of the class are great as is, in my opinion. Some lower end damage impulses could use a boost, but 1d6/2 levels isn't bad at all.IMO the alternative isn't a martial with focus spell but a focus spell's martial.
We don't have anything closer to this. The more closer that we have is the Monk but for it's just complementary to it's unarmed strikes it's not like monks are focus martials.
When I propose focus spell I'm including focus cantrips as alternative to 2-action Impulses (don't misunderstand, they already are basically the same thing, Impulses are focus cantrips with "you have gather the X element and have it at hand" requirements) and to change Overflow to focus points to solve the currently action economy problems and weak Overflow Impulses damages and progression. This would allow to use stronger spells and even to cast them sequentially without problems. And allows a better integration with archetypes and items because use an already existing and well tested mechanic.
The difference is the number of options and effects. The ideia isn't have only one AoE focus spell. But many different ones as we already have in the currently Kineticists. But stronger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i was more talking as an average over the course of a day than an exact model, Rogues are compitant at damage but even if they always have sneak on they never come close to the average of a barbarian or fighter
That doesn't sound right. Using the most comparable weapons I can find would be the Elven Curve Blade Thief vs Falcon Barbarian.
1d8+4+1d6 = 12 average.
1d10+4+2 = only 11.5
You can push that a bit depending on your instinct, but unless you're taking Giant Instinct penalties you'll be pretty close. I think Dragon Instinct is the gold Standard for damage and even it falls behind at a few levels when more sneak attack dice kick in.
Edit: this also feels a little off topic since the kineticist is primarily a ranged class and won't be dealing melee damage, but I think the same concept holds up when you look at ranged builds. A d6 on every attack in a round is a better than a Ranger getting 1d8 only once, and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on lvl actually, 10 or lower creatures of lvl +3/4 are scary, but after lvl 10 what I fear more is actually encounter with multiple creatures, as it's very easy to control the higher lvl ones.
i was more talking as an average over the course of a day than an exact model, Rogues are compitant at damage but even if they always have sneak on they never come close to the average of a barbarian or fighterThat doesn't sound right. Using the most comparable weapons I can find would be the Elven Curve Blade Thief vs Falcon Barbarian.
1d8+4+1d6 = 12 average.
1d10+4+2 = only 11.5You can push that a bit depending on your instinct, but unless you're taking Giant Instinct penalties you'll be pretty close. I think Dragon Instinct is the gold Standard for damage and even it falls behind at a few levels when more sneak attack dice kick in.
Edit: this also feels a little off topic since the kineticist is primarily a ranged class and won't be dealing melee damage, but I think the same concept holds up when you look at ranged builds. A d6 on every attack in a round is a better than a Ranger getting 1d8 only once, and so on.
elven curve blade is HARDLY the average rogue, i was going by thief rapier rogue as the standard since that is a weapon at default availibility
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on lvl actually, 10 or lower creatures of lvl +3/4 are scary, but after lvl 10 what I fear more is actually encounter with multiple creatures, as it's very easy to control the higher lvl ones.
but like i said, past level 12 or so, a sorcerer already can have so many fireballs as not to need worry about running out, "aoe for days with better damage and economy than a kineticist" is already right there, and there is a reason we think of playing a sorcerer that way as a "trap"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that's part of what I don't understand. Why would making kineticist another martial with focus spells, make it the blaster everyone wants?
if their overflow abilities were focus spells the devs can alot higher damage to them.
my goalpost is rogue sneak damage, rogue is the most "out of combat utility at will" martial class we have, and while the nature of their utility not exactly the same, i feel like its a good starting point,I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.
Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.
So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?
so your baseline is one of the better single target damage dealers in the game. as opposed to a swashbuckler, inventor, thaum, etc. i think around those is where im at. rogue is too high imo, especially by level 8
I've noticed we are constantly on the same side when it comes to game design and how we want our classes lol. This is the summoner all over again.Paizo in the last classes have shown that they will limit classes and create weird action economies just because. They have also shown that they are more likely than not to keep things as they are and only do minor changes.
So its not that people don't believe in Paizo to solve problems. Its that Paizo has shown they are not willing to go far enough to fix those problems.
There is no reason why so many classes require that they provoke AoO to do their basic ability, yet Paizo keeps doing it. There is no reason why a single target class has to waste more actions to do the same thing as a fighter. There is no reason an AoE class has to waste more actions to do the same thing as a cantrip.
Kineticist right now has all of those problems. Their single target abilities don't deal enough damage while provoking all over the place and costing too many actions. Their AoE abilities deal too little damage while costing too many actions and having too low a DC. Their utility tend to do too little while taking too many actions and lasting for a short time.
Do you notice the trend? Kineticist is supposed to be a blaster that deals about as much damage as a Rogue doing Sneak Attack, while having the option to do AoE blasting and utility. Right now they deal about as much damage as a champion, with such a bad action economy that people seem to just be coping with such reasoning as "you just have to deal with it" and "they can't possibly do better cause at-will, ignore all the cantrips".
i feel like youd be happier in 5e where balance isnt important
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so your baseline is one of the better single target damage dealers in the game. as opposed to a swashbuckler, inventor, thaum, etc. i think around those is where im at. rogue is too high imo, especially by level 8my goalpost is rogue sneak damage, rogue is the most "out of combat utility at will" martial class we have, and while the nature of their utility not exactly the same, i feel like its a good starting point,I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.
Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.
So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?
...
Kineticist is literally supposed to fit the same spot as Rogue, but with elemental powers instead of martial.
where in the playtest does it say this.
if this is a 1e hold over, im not inclined to auto accept those.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my goalpost is rogue sneak damage, rogue is the most "out of combat utility at will" martial class we have, and while the nature of their utility not exactly the same, i feel like its a good starting point,I think the main issue is: keeping the class with as much utility as it currently has, while doing the damage us "blaster kineticist people" want it to do, and not being overpowered, is probably just impossible. You can't be good at everything, and this version of the class was not made to be good at the things I want it to be good at.I hope readers can put some trust in paizo to balance the class as is, making small tweaks instead of a huge revamp. Paizo is getting better and better at balancing and making things fun, coming up with solutions to problems. If all we say is that we like it as it is, but needs some small tweaks and more damage, they will come up with solutions to those problems.
You gotta belieeeeve
Yup, that is definitely correct. There's no way Paizo will be able to please all parties on this.
Might be worth establishing some acceptable parameters for single target damage, though. I don't think Paizo will make it a full blown "magical archer" with zero out of combat utility or AoE, which is what you'd need to get single target damage comparable to a martial.
So how much less damage than a Ranger, Fighter, or Gunslinger is it ok for them to deal?
I'm reluctant to use rogue as a benchmark because their damage is situational, especially at range. Unless you're going dread striker/dirge of doom (and no, gestalt, not every party needs to have that) you're not consistently getting sneak attack out of a bow multiple times a round. If you are playing with a party that consistently gives grapples or frightens, you basically have the best DPR in the game.
I think consistentcy is what people want, otherwise they'd be satisfyed with True Strike...
I dunno, over 10 levels the rogue couldn't sneak attack, like, 5 times? it's situational, but it's a pretty easy situation to set up. once they get debilitations it's even easier.
elven curve blade is HARDLY the average rogue, i was going by thief rapier rogue as the standard since that is a weapon at default availibilityi was more talking as an average over the course of a day than an exact model, Rogues are compitant at damage but even if they always have sneak on they never come close to the average of a barbarian or fighterThat doesn't sound right. Using the most comparable weapons I can find would be the Elven Curve Blade Thief vs Falcon Barbarian.
1d8+4+1d6 = 12 average.
1d10+4+2 = only 11.5You can push that a bit depending on your instinct, but unless you're taking Giant Instinct penalties you'll be pretty close. I think Dragon Instinct is the gold Standard for damage and even it falls behind at a few levels when more sneak attack dice kick in.
Edit: this also feels a little off topic since the kineticist is primarily a ranged class and won't be dealing melee damage, but I think the same concept holds up when you look at ranged builds. A d6 on every attack in a round is a better than a Ranger getting 1d8 only once, and so on.
I've been comparing to a rogue with a shorbow, my damage MVP in the AP I've been running.
People want a blaster that deals good single target damage and has utility. They are complaining that this playtest is not that. So your comeback is, "this playtest is not that stop complaining"?
You do realize that's the entire reason literally most of the playtest thread mentioned the lack of damage at some point or another? Do you perhaps fail to realize that when everyone is complaining that Paizo is doing in the playtest that perhaps they should change it for the final release?
where did i say the damage is fine where its at? don't move goalposts on me now
elven curve blade is HARDLY the average rogue, i was going by thief rapier rogue as the standard since that is a weapon at default availibilityi was more talking as an average over the course of a day than an exact model, Rogues are compitant at damage but even if they always have sneak on they never come close to the average of a barbarian or fighterThat doesn't sound right. Using the most comparable weapons I can find would be the Elven Curve Blade Thief vs Falcon Barbarian.
1d8+4+1d6 = 12 average.
1d10+4+2 = only 11.5You can push that a bit depending on your instinct, but unless you're taking Giant Instinct penalties you'll be pretty close. I think Dragon Instinct is the gold Standard for damage and even it falls behind at a few levels when more sneak attack dice kick in.
Edit: this also feels a little off topic since the kineticist is primarily a ranged class and won't be dealing melee damage, but I think the same concept holds up when you look at ranged builds. A d6 on every attack in a round is a better than a Ranger getting 1d8 only once, and so on.
The rapier just drops you by one die size. (And gives you the flexibility of a free hand.) You're then starting at 11 average damage vs 11.5. I would say not qualify those two numbers as "nowhere close" to each other. And that's without having the barbarian drop down to one handed as well.
The shortcomings of the rogue are less hit points than the average martial and harder conditions to fulfill to deal their full damage. When those conditions are filled their damage numbers keep up fine. You just have to work to get them and may put yourself in more danger to do so.
Which is why I prefer to look at classes that don't need to fulfill those conditions.
I've been comparing to a rogue with a shorbow, my damage MVP in the AP I've been running.
My shortbow Investigator has similarly felt insane. Stealth to initiative is so so good on archers.
But you're proving my point. If the rogue deals consistent sneak attack damage they get full martial single target damage. The kineticist will have to deal less than that for single target if they also want AoE and utility.
Rogues certainly do have utility, though I think it is hard to compare extra skills and skill feats to things like flight and invisibility. You're solving different problems there.
But they have nada for AoE and will have less hit points to boot. So even if you call their utility a wash the rogue would still be too high a benchmark for single target.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been comparing to a rogue with a shorbow, my damage MVP in the AP I've been running.My shortbow Investigator has similarly felt insane. Stealth to initiative is so so good on archers.
But you're proving my point. If the rogue deals consistent sneak attack damage they get full martial single target damage. The kineticist will have to deal less than that for single target if they also want AoE and utility.
Rogues certainly do have utility, though I think it is hard to compare extra skills and skill feats to things like flight and invisibility. You're solving different problems there.
But they have nada for AoE and will have less hit points to boot. So even if you call their utility a wash the rogue would still be too high a benchmark for single target.
rogue already has plenty of utility, they have 10 skill up's and 10 skill feats worth of utility power budget we have to work with, as for aoe, as ive previously stated i think its nice, but i dont think its especially valuable, and certanly should not be a classes focal point
OK one more reason to not do a Dedicated Gate :PWhich they can’t do in an aura of difficult terrain.Forcing enemies to provoke from your allies is also very good.I agree but it's unlikely. Because a Step is enough to get out of the way.Air's difficult terrain aura is the best one. It only effects enemies. 10ft emanation is good enough to waste an extra action getting close as long as the enemy isn't right next to the aura to begin with.
Arial boomerang really gets fun if you get reactions to move from your ancestry.
I've been really wanting to try that.
rogue already has plenty of utility, they have 10 skill up's and 10 skill feats worth of utility power budget we have to work with, as for aoe, as ive previously stated i think its nice, but i dont think its especially valuable, and certanly should not be a classes focal pointI've been comparing to a rogue with a shorbow, my damage MVP in the AP I've been running.My shortbow Investigator has similarly felt insane. Stealth to initiative is so so good on archers.
But you're proving my point. If the rogue deals consistent sneak attack damage they get full martial single target damage. The kineticist will have to deal less than that for single target if they also want AoE and utility.
Rogues certainly do have utility, though I think it is hard to compare extra skills and skill feats to things like flight and invisibility. You're solving different problems there.
But they have nada for AoE and will have less hit points to boot. So even if you call their utility a wash the rogue would still be too high a benchmark for single target.
It is still going eat into your class budget though, regardless of whether it is the focal point. Having the tool is a significant advantage that straight up martials largely don't have. So your single target damage will inevitably suffer for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot could change from the play test to the final draft of the class, but "Role of the Class" is a very unlikely one to shift that much.
Any boost to Kineticist damage is going to be balanced around them taking three attacks around, and eventually have no map on all of those attacks.
The range and area of effect on the Kineticist AoE is a little bonkers. I am guessing they are testing out what people think about such long ranges and big areas. I would not be shocked at all to see the bursts, lines and ranges come down a little bit as a little more damage is added to some of the overflow abilities. That will probably make a lot of folks happy with the end results.
I would be shocked if barrage blast on Fire blasts with stoke element doesn't out perform electric arc cast with reach spell to match the range. Plus you get to add runes to your blasts so you get interesting crit effects, which trigger a fair bit just from making so many attack rolls.