Disappointingly Low Damage


Kineticist Class

251 to 300 of 339 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the damage of blasts and keeping in mind that the average monster gets a success on a saving throw against ANY DC; I still don't understand why we wouldn't want the damage buff to some extent.

Anecdotally, I played a wizard Tuesday for a one shot. In a six hour game, not a single creature failed or critically failed my spells. It wasn't my poor abilities to pick spells, target the "correct" creature, or etc. But, it wasn't fun dealing 25% of my damage compared to my melee friends/ranger who were consistently dealing reliable damage. It just didn't *feel* fun.

I know the thematics of the kineticist are fun, but when it comes to impulses and damage, I doubt it will *feel* fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen anyone lately saying they don't need a damage buff.

Most of the debates have been how, or how much.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
feelsbradman wrote:

Looking at the damage of blasts and keeping in mind that the average monster gets a success on a saving throw against ANY DC; I still don't understand why we wouldn't want the damage buff to some extent.

Anecdotally, I played a wizard Tuesday for a one shot. In a six hour game, not a single creature failed or critically failed my spells. It wasn't my poor abilities to pick spells, target the "correct" creature, or etc. But, it wasn't fun dealing 25% of my damage compared to my melee friends/ranger who were consistently dealing reliable damage. It just didn't *feel* fun.

I know the thematics of the kineticist are fun, but when it comes to impulses and damage, I doubt it will *feel* fun.

I think one of the big issues that people are trying to address in this play test is that they are trying to "Fix" their problem with casters in PF2 design by insisting that a new class is able to just do the thing that they have tried to get casters to do, and it doesn't feel like casters do well enough.

But if you feel like caster spell saves are not landing enough and not doing enough damage, there is no way the Kineticist is going to magically fix that problem. At best it will offer you something completely different, but usually in a way that requires some tactical decision making to do as well as the base classes. It is very, very clear that additional classes will not just do what other classes can do, but better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
feelsbradman wrote:

Looking at the damage of blasts and keeping in mind that the average monster gets a success on a saving throw against ANY DC; I still don't understand why we wouldn't want the damage buff to some extent.

Anecdotally, I played a wizard Tuesday for a one shot. In a six hour game, not a single creature failed or critically failed my spells. It wasn't my poor abilities to pick spells, target the "correct" creature, or etc. But, it wasn't fun dealing 25% of my damage compared to my melee friends/ranger who were consistently dealing reliable damage. It just didn't *feel* fun.

I know the thematics of the kineticist are fun, but when it comes to impulses and damage, I doubt it will *feel* fun.

I think one of the big issues that people are trying to address in this play test is that they are trying to "Fix" their problem with casters in PF2 design by insisting that a new class is able to just do the thing that they have tried to get casters to do, and it doesn't feel like casters do well enough.

But if you feel like caster spell saves are not landing enough and not doing enough damage, there is no way the Kineticist is going to magically fix that problem. At best it will offer you something completely different, but usually in a way that requires some tactical decision making to do as well as the base classes. It is very, very clear that additional classes will not just do what other classes can do, but better.

100% agreed


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My comment doesn't imply that casters should have a higher save chance - I was merely commenting on the fun factor of the class, and how it compares to damage. (i.e. more damage = more fun; or at least I feel like I'm contributing more). I think spellcasting is fine as it is.

I really can't provide numerical suggestions to class, I'm an English teacher not a statistician. But, if I were to make a suggestion, I would probably have the gather element ability be related to damage in some capacity. For example, if you spend 1 action gathering it does the damage listed as is. But, there could be 2 action/3 action variants that increase damage until you overflow. The idea thematically is that the more effort you put into gathering your element, the more you get out of it.


There is likely room for them to get a slight damage bump as is.

Sczarni

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
feelsbradman wrote:

Looking at the damage of blasts and keeping in mind that the average monster gets a success on a saving throw against ANY DC; I still don't understand why we wouldn't want the damage buff to some extent.

Anecdotally, I played a wizard Tuesday for a one shot. In a six hour game, not a single creature failed or critically failed my spells. It wasn't my poor abilities to pick spells, target the "correct" creature, or etc. But, it wasn't fun dealing 25% of my damage compared to my melee friends/ranger who were consistently dealing reliable damage. It just didn't *feel* fun.

I know the thematics of the kineticist are fun, but when it comes to impulses and damage, I doubt it will *feel* fun.

I think one of the big issues that people are trying to address in this play test is that they are trying to "Fix" their problem with casters in PF2 design by insisting that a new class is able to just do the thing that they have tried to get casters to do, and it doesn't feel like casters do well enough.

But if you feel like caster spell saves are not landing enough and not doing enough damage, there is no way the Kineticist is going to magically fix that problem. At best it will offer you something completely different, but usually in a way that requires some tactical decision making to do as well as the base classes. It is very, very clear that additional classes will not just do what other classes can do, but better.

The issue is, is that kineticists should do one thing and one thing well and that's blast. It's a niche that has never been good in PF2e. And yet, we can never get that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Unicore wrote:
feelsbradman wrote:

Looking at the damage of blasts and keeping in mind that the average monster gets a success on a saving throw against ANY DC; I still don't understand why we wouldn't want the damage buff to some extent.

Anecdotally, I played a wizard Tuesday for a one shot. In a six hour game, not a single creature failed or critically failed my spells. It wasn't my poor abilities to pick spells, target the "correct" creature, or etc. But, it wasn't fun dealing 25% of my damage compared to my melee friends/ranger who were consistently dealing reliable damage. It just didn't *feel* fun.

I know the thematics of the kineticist are fun, but when it comes to impulses and damage, I doubt it will *feel* fun.

I think one of the big issues that people are trying to address in this play test is that they are trying to "Fix" their problem with casters in PF2 design by insisting that a new class is able to just do the thing that they have tried to get casters to do, and it doesn't feel like casters do well enough.

But if you feel like caster spell saves are not landing enough and not doing enough damage, there is no way the Kineticist is going to magically fix that problem. At best it will offer you something completely different, but usually in a way that requires some tactical decision making to do as well as the base classes. It is very, very clear that additional classes will not just do what other classes can do, but better.

100% agreed

Also agreed... To a point. Casters can do so many other things that you could conceivably have a class which does AoE damage better. There is room for that in a way there isn't for higher single target damage than a martial with a bow.

But AoE damage doesn't seem to be what people care about.


I'd be fine with having less focus on the caster aspect then, as opposed to feeling like 75 percent a martial and 75 percent a caster (and not feeling particularly effective at either role). Just my preference though. I just don't want the kineticist to pay the versatility tax that keeps casters in check when I just want a class that blaps with fire damage at range with martial accuracy. The only way to do so currently is a starlit span magus which means I have to be a leshy or kitsune bc they have ranged natural attacks. I want the kineticist to be the class that lets me do my blaps with any ancestry. Honestly, a feat like fusion blast that let me make a fire blast with two hands and two actions (as opposed to having to be dual gate) would make me perfectly statisfied with the class. Magus playtest has me confident in the final product. I'll still grumble bc discourse is fun and I like talking to you people


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Beyond that I think many are ok with stronger aoe options at the cost of times per day.

Daily limits breaks the fundamental draw of the class. No thanks.

Just make them suck less.


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

Looking at the damage of blasts and keeping in mind that the average monster gets a success on a saving throw against ANY DC; I still don't understand why we wouldn't want the damage buff to some extent.

Anecdotally, I played a wizard Tuesday for a one shot. In a six hour game, not a single creature failed or critically failed my spells. It wasn't my poor abilities to pick spells, target the "correct" creature, or etc. But, it wasn't fun dealing 25% of my damage compared to my melee friends/ranger who were consistently dealing reliable damage. It just didn't *feel* fun.

I know the thematics of the kineticist are fun, but when it comes to impulses and damage, I doubt it will *feel* fun.

I think one of the big issues that people are trying to address in this play test is that they are trying to "Fix" their problem with casters in PF2 design by insisting that a new class is able to just do the thing that they have tried to get casters to do, and it doesn't feel like casters do well enough.

But if you feel like caster spell saves are not landing enough and not doing enough damage, there is no way the Kineticist is going to magically fix that problem. At best it will offer you something completely different, but usually in a way that requires some tactical decision making to do as well as the base classes. It is very, very clear that additional classes will not just do what other classes can do, but better.

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as if there is no choice. They literally can make the choice right now if they really wanted.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as if there is no choice. They literally can make the choice right now if they really wanted.

This feels like your projection on the class, not a developer stated design goal of the class.

Feeling like you don't like the design direction is fine, and stating why is fine, but trying to mold what was designed, a very clear focus on multi target striking, not single target striking, is not going to work.

And I think a lot of work went into making the psychic into a blaster that can do what they do every encounter. Expecting the Kineticist to be more focused on being a single target blaster than the psychic was probably coming into the playtest with expectations destined to be left unmet.


Squiggit wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Beyond that I think many are ok with stronger aoe options at the cost of times per day.

Daily limits breaks the fundamental draw of the class. No thanks.

Just make them suck less.

If the draw if the class is to be imbalanced it doesn't belong in this system


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Unicore wrote:
feelsbradman wrote:

Looking at the damage of blasts and keeping in mind that the average monster gets a success on a saving throw against ANY DC; I still don't understand why we wouldn't want the damage buff to some extent.

Anecdotally, I played a wizard Tuesday for a one shot. In a six hour game, not a single creature failed or critically failed my spells. It wasn't my poor abilities to pick spells, target the "correct" creature, or etc. But, it wasn't fun dealing 25% of my damage compared to my melee friends/ranger who were consistently dealing reliable damage. It just didn't *feel* fun.

I know the thematics of the kineticist are fun, but when it comes to impulses and damage, I doubt it will *feel* fun.

I think one of the big issues that people are trying to address in this play test is that they are trying to "Fix" their problem with casters in PF2 design by insisting that a new class is able to just do the thing that they have tried to get casters to do, and it doesn't feel like casters do well enough.

But if you feel like caster spell saves are not landing enough and not doing enough damage, there is no way the Kineticist is going to magically fix that problem. At best it will offer you something completely different, but usually in a way that requires some tactical decision making to do as well as the base classes. It is very, very clear that additional classes will not just do what other classes can do, but better.

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as...

I'm not as nice. I'm ok with people giving up on it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:


If the draw if the class is to be imbalanced it doesn't belong in this system

I mean I guess that's glib of you but it doesn't really help anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as if there is no choice. They literally can make the choice right now if they really wanted.

This feels like your projection on the class, not a developer stated design goal of the class.

Feeling like you don't like the design direction is fine, and stating why is fine, but trying to mold what was designed, a very clear focus on multi target striking, not single target striking, is not going to work.

And I think a lot of work went into making the psychic into a blaster that can do what they do every encounter. Expecting the Kineticist to be more focused on being a single target blaster than the psychic was probably coming into the playtest with expectations destined to be left unmet.

Yeah, you know, I haven't actually looked that close at the psychic but as I do it seems pretty darn good at it. Why is that not filling the single target damage niche again?


Captain Morgan wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as if there is no choice. They literally can make the choice right now if they really wanted.

This feels like your projection on the class, not a developer stated design goal of the class.

Feeling like you don't like the design direction is fine, and stating why is fine, but trying to mold what was designed, a very clear focus on multi target striking, not single target striking, is not going to work.

And I think a lot of work went into making the psychic into a blaster that can do what they do every encounter. Expecting the Kineticist to be more focused on being a single target blaster than the psychic was probably coming into the playtest with expectations destined to be left unmet.

Yeah, you know, I haven't actually looked that close at the psychic but as I do it seems pretty darn good at it. Why is that not filling the single target damage niche again?

Because it doesn't compete with fighter.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as if there is no choice. They literally can make the choice right now if they really wanted.

This feels like your projection on the class, not a developer stated design goal of the class.

Feeling like you don't like the design direction is fine, and stating why is fine, but trying to mold what was designed, a very clear focus on multi target striking, not single target striking, is not going to work.

And I think a lot of work went into making the psychic into a blaster that can do what they do every encounter. Expecting the Kineticist to be more focused on being a single target blaster than the psychic was probably coming into the playtest with expectations destined to be left unmet.

Yeah, you know, I haven't actually looked that close at the psychic but as I do it seems pretty darn good at it. Why is that not filling the single target damage niche again?

Psychic is pretty decent but it's still a spellcaster and subject to significantly low chance of causing enemies to fail or crit fail spells.

On a Barbarian, for example, I can use my two attacks to hit the enemy 35% of the time for full damage on an AC target of 12 on the die with a 5% chance to cause a crit and a 60% chance to miss. Then 2nd attack is a 85% chance to miss, 10% chance to hit, 5% chance to crit.

Meanwhile I can use two actions, instead to cast a spell

On that same target, I have a 15% chance to do full damage, 5% chance to do double damage, a whopping 50% chance to do half damage and a 30% chance to crit fail and deal no damage.

So if I deal 1d12+10 on the die, that is 16.5 avg * .4 + 16.5 * .15 or 6.6 + 2.5 = 9.925 avg dmg in a turn.

Meanwhile electric arc deals 6.5 avg damage twice. So that's

6.5*.5*.5+6.5*.15+13×.05= 6.5 avg damage a turn for the most powerful cantrip. So giant instinct Barbarian deals 150% as much damage as the most powerful cantrip.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as if there is no choice. They literally can make the choice right now if they really wanted.

This feels like your projection on the class, not a developer stated design goal of the class.

Feeling like you don't like the design direction is fine, and stating why is fine, but trying to mold what was designed, a very clear focus on multi target striking, not single target striking, is not going to work.

And I think a lot of work went into making the psychic into a blaster that can do what they do every encounter. Expecting the Kineticist to be more focused on being a single target blaster than the psychic was probably coming into the playtest with expectations destined to be left unmet.

Yeah, you know, I haven't actually looked that close at the psychic but as I do it seems pretty darn good at it. Why is that not filling the single target damage niche again?
Because it doesn't compete with fighter.

Well a 5th level Distant Grasp character can deal 2d10+6 in the same round as a 5d6+6 telekinetic projectile... And can do that twice an encounter, every encounter. They even gave it third action damage dealers like psy burst.

I know that fighter has accuracy, but that's rather solid compared to a 2d8+4 trident, especially if you can cast True Strike. And the psychic has access to True Strike.

Oscillating Wave gets things like d10 ranged cantrips and d12 melee ones. 3d12+6 is power attack great sword territory. Only big issue is the accuracy of spell attack rolls, but they also have a lot of ways to buff that accuracy with their slots.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as if there is no choice. They literally can make the choice right now if they really wanted.

This feels like your projection on the class, not a developer stated design goal of the class.

Feeling like you don't like the design direction is fine, and stating why is fine, but trying to mold what was designed, a very clear focus on multi target striking, not single target striking, is not going to work.

And I think a lot of work went into making the psychic into a blaster that can do what they do every encounter. Expecting the Kineticist to be more focused on being a single target blaster than the psychic was probably coming into the playtest with expectations destined to be left unmet.

Yeah, you know, I haven't actually looked that close at the psychic but as I do it seems pretty darn good at it. Why is that not filling the single target damage niche again?

Psychic is a spellcaster with all the spellcaster issues. They are better than other casters, but a caster non the less.

Kineticist is not a caster so you would expect it to actually deal good single target damage. Except it doesn't and people are here coping that "it at least has AoE" and "Paizo wants to make this an AoE class so stop asking for more damage".

So yeah Psychic doesn't actually fill the still vacant "blaster" niche.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Psychic/sorcerer/druid/wizard can all fill the blaster niche.

You are just not happy with the blaster niche in 2e


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as if there is no choice. They literally can make the choice right now if they really wanted.

This feels like your projection on the class, not a developer stated design goal of the class.

Feeling like you don't like the design direction is fine, and stating why is fine, but trying to mold what was designed, a very clear focus on multi target striking, not single target striking, is not going to work.

And I think a lot of work went into making the psychic into a blaster that can do what they do every encounter. Expecting the Kineticist to be more focused on being a single target blaster than the psychic was probably coming into the playtest with expectations destined to be left unmet.

Yeah, you know, I haven't actually looked that close at the psychic but as I do it seems pretty darn good at it. Why is that not filling the single target damage niche again?

Psychic is a spellcaster with all the spellcaster issues. They are better than other casters, but a caster non the less.

Kineticist is not a caster so you would expect it to actually deal good single target damage. Except it doesn't and people are here coping that "it at least has AoE" and "Paizo wants to make this an AoE class so stop asking for more damage".

So yeah Psychic doesn't actually fill the still vacant "blaster" niche.

Before the playtest, I actually did expect the Kineticist to be a single target striker. Perhaps in retrospect, I should not have, because making that different enough from the psychic would have been difficult and everyone would have just been directly comparing the two and trying to decide which was the better blaster. So I was surprised when it wasn't. But I read the playtest class, and it was super obvious that the class was not designed to be a single target blaster. I am not 100% sold on the focus on multi-target striking, although it is winning me over for blast focused multi-targeting attacks. It is worth playtesting what the class is, not what I had originally thought it was going to be. The damage issues are not as bad as they first appear on the class as a whole. That might still be a problem because people will jump to conclusions about damage potential based on die size and static bonuses and not read into the classes ability to make lots of agile attacks at ranged for the DPR booster that it can be, so the data that people report about that will be useful but it might not change what the development team wants the class to be.


Temperans wrote:
Unicore wrote:
feelsbradman wrote:

Looking at the damage of blasts and keeping in mind that the average monster gets a success on a saving throw against ANY DC; I still don't understand why we wouldn't want the damage buff to some extent.

Anecdotally, I played a wizard Tuesday for a one shot. In a six hour game, not a single creature failed or critically failed my spells. It wasn't my poor abilities to pick spells, target the "correct" creature, or etc. But, it wasn't fun dealing 25% of my damage compared to my melee friends/ranger who were consistently dealing reliable damage. It just didn't *feel* fun.

I know the thematics of the kineticist are fun, but when it comes to impulses and damage, I doubt it will *feel* fun.

I think one of the big issues that people are trying to address in this play test is that they are trying to "Fix" their problem with casters in PF2 design by insisting that a new class is able to just do the thing that they have tried to get casters to do, and it doesn't feel like casters do well enough.

But if you feel like caster spell saves are not landing enough and not doing enough damage, there is no way the Kineticist is going to magically fix that problem. At best it will offer you something completely different, but usually in a way that requires some tactical decision making to do as well as the base classes. It is very, very clear that additional classes will not just do what other classes can do, but better.

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as...

Alternatively, they aren't hanging it over anyone's head and think they made it already.

Who knows.

Spoiler:
They know, but they'll never tell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:

If the class that is quite literally supposed to be the best at single target blasting is bad at it, then they will never add it.

You are quite literally saying that people should just give up on wanting a blaster because Paizo will never make it; And if that's the case then there is no point in playing the game that the devs refuse to make a class for every player and character concept.

I absolutely despise even the idea of devs hanging a character concept over people's head and straight up refuse to make it. While people defend as if there is no choice. They literally can make the choice right now if they really wanted.

This feels like your projection on the class, not a developer stated design goal of the class.

Feeling like you don't like the design direction is fine, and stating why is fine, but trying to mold what was designed, a very clear focus on multi target striking, not single target striking, is not going to work.

And I think a lot of work went into making the psychic into a blaster that can do what they do every encounter. Expecting the Kineticist to be more focused on being a single target blaster than the psychic was probably coming into the playtest with expectations destined to be left unmet.

Yeah, you know, I haven't actually looked that close at the psychic but as I do it seems pretty darn good at it. Why is that not filling the single target damage niche again?

Psychic is a spellcaster with all the spellcaster issues. They are better than other casters, but a caster non the less.

Kineticist is not a caster so you would expect it to actually deal good single target damage. Except it doesn't and people are here coping that "it at least has AoE" and "Paizo wants to make this an AoE class so stop asking for more damage".

So yeah Psychic doesn't actually fill the still vacant "blaster" niche.

Before the playtest, I actually did expect the...

My concern regarding damage is the value per action. Especially since moving feels awful since all your Overflow stuff is effectively 3 or 4 actions, your utility is mostly 2 actions, etc.

The class feels like they looked at people complaining about not having a 3rd action to use on casters and just chucked both extra actions and reload on it instead of just one of those.


The kineticist might not have flat damage boosters to their Blasts like a Thaumaturge or Barbarian or Inventor, but they do have a couple auras with flat damage every round to potentially multiple enemies. Probably all the enemies in a room by 8th, almost certainly by 12. A dedicated water kineticist can make anything within 30 ft have a really bad day.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:
The kineticist might not have flat damage boosters to their Blasts like a Thaumaturge or Barbarian or Inventor, but they do have a couple auras with flat damage every round to potentially multiple enemies. Probably all the enemies in a room by 8th, almost certainly by 12. A dedicated water kineticist can make anything within 30 ft have a really bad day.

Levels 1-7 though, they are as likely to damage their party as they are enemies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The fire aura is hilarious. Now your whole party gets to know what it feels like to be a Flames Oracle! Very useful and fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Critical Element

Did anyone notice that Critical Element gives only one critical specialization, to one element?

'You gain access to the critical specialization effects for Elemental Blasts with ONE element you choose when you gain this class feature .'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Critical Element

Did anyone notice that Critical Element gives only one critical specialization, to one element?

'You gain access to the critical specialization effects for Elemental Blasts with ONE element you choose when you gain this class feature .'

I didn't. Well notice!


So we can avoid this strangeness with water and splash :)
Of course it would be better if it didn't exist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Critical Element

Did anyone notice that Critical Element gives only one critical specialization, to one element?

'You gain access to the critical specialization effects for Elemental Blasts with ONE element you choose when you gain this class feature .'

This implies you can get the crit spec for an element you can't use, which is kinda funny.


Guntermench wrote:
Errenor wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Critical Element

Did anyone notice that Critical Element gives only one critical specialization, to one element?

'You gain access to the critical specialization effects for Elemental Blasts with ONE element you choose when you gain this class feature .'
This implies you can get the crit spec for an element you can't use, which is kinda funny.

Well, they did write "A critical hit with YOUR element truly exemplifies the fury of the Elemental Planes", but it is a flavour text mostly. Aside from that, yes, there's no 'you can channel' phrase :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean the core class feature, elemental blast, seems to imply that that the class will literally blast enemies. The smugness of "you don't know design" is contradicted by the CORE ability of the class - you'd think if the design team didn't want to project this idea of a blaster, then they would've made it an optional feat (like many of the various AOE class DC abilities).

The various spellcasters mentioned above can blast enemies but at a measured pace (i.e. they cannot blast after spellslots are used) and most of the time a good team player will have a varied spell list. The people on the forums that are saddened that this class isn't a blaster, are saddened that they indirectly/directly relegated to playing a fighter/gunslinger for high, single targeted, consistent damage.

To compensate for the damage (the topic of this thread) the class could have gather elements be a varied action (1, 2, or 3 actions). Based on how much "effort" you spend gathering your element then you gain a damage boost to that gathered element. Maybe for 2 actions Gathering lets you add your CON to damage; 3 actions allows CON to damage and pumps the die size up one. The class would be able to operate in blaster mode (i.e. just using your gate for elemental blasts) or utilizing element specific AoEs


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There will always be some people saying they are upset when any class isn't topping damage.

It's been that way through every playtest I've seen. Every single one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charging 3 actions to add con and a dice size to then spend 3 actions for a bad overflow is quite literally the worst.

It is literally the equivalent of standing in spot while enemies kill you only to slap them in the face, along with your allies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's true I think we can bake a damage bump into existing mechanics instead of adding more mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
feelsbradman wrote:
To compensate for the damage (the topic of this thread) the class could have gather elements be a varied action (1, 2, or 3 actions). Based on how much "effort" you spend gathering your element then you gain a damage boost to that gathered element. Maybe for 2 actions Gathering lets you add your CON to damage; 3 actions allows CON to damage and pumps the die size up one. The class would be able to operate in blaster mode (i.e. just using your gate for elemental blasts) or utilizing element specific AoEs

If they went with this, I would much prefer that they rebuild the class around being a variable action class where all their abilities are 1-3 actions (or more like some of the two turn spells). Mostly we've been seeing design trying to make it a 2 action system with various action taxes, so a really open variable action class would be nice to play around with.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
gesalt wrote:
feelsbradman wrote:
To compensate for the damage (the topic of this thread) the class could have gather elements be a varied action (1, 2, or 3 actions). Based on how much "effort" you spend gathering your element then you gain a damage boost to that gathered element. Maybe for 2 actions Gathering lets you add your CON to damage; 3 actions allows CON to damage and pumps the die size up one. The class would be able to operate in blaster mode (i.e. just using your gate for elemental blasts) or utilizing element specific AoEs
If they went with this, I would much prefer that they rebuild the class around being a variable action class where all their abilities are 1-3 actions (or more like some of the two turn spells). Mostly we've been seeing design trying to make it a 2 action system with various action taxes, so a really open variable action class would be nice to play around with.

I would LOVE a variable action class where ever ability just about takes 1->3 actions.


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

To reiterate, an earth element kineticist’s blasts are better DPR than a non psychic casting cantrips. So you can build that kineticist. And blasting away with blasts does get a lot of support and has the highest damage potential options on the class…it is just multi-target focused, not single target focused.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.

So it does poor damage even with Earth and forces you to spread it out so it's worth even less, with punishing action economy. It's just not doing what was expected or desired.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Verzen wrote:
gesalt wrote:
feelsbradman wrote:
To compensate for the damage (the topic of this thread) the class could have gather elements be a varied action (1, 2, or 3 actions). Based on how much "effort" you spend gathering your element then you gain a damage boost to that gathered element. Maybe for 2 actions Gathering lets you add your CON to damage; 3 actions allows CON to damage and pumps the die size up one. The class would be able to operate in blaster mode (i.e. just using your gate for elemental blasts) or utilizing element specific AoEs
If they went with this, I would much prefer that they rebuild the class around being a variable action class where all their abilities are 1-3 actions (or more like some of the two turn spells). Mostly we've been seeing design trying to make it a 2 action system with various action taxes, so a really open variable action class would be nice to play around with.
I would LOVE a variable action class where ever ability just about takes 1->3 actions.

that could be really cool actually, sort of like a built in power attack, where you can throw bigger singuler bursts at indavidual enemies or spread your damage around with smaller indavidual blasts, I still prefer the two hand idea for being a bit simpler but i could definatly see the value in this


Angel Hunter D wrote:
So it does poor damage even with Earth and forces you to spread it out so it's worth even less, with punishing action economy. It's just not doing what was expected or desired.

If two characters in a party can do 75% of target hp in two actions, the second to act wastes 2/3rds of their potential.

If instead, one of those characters does 25% of target hp to three targets, the target still dies in one round, but next round the second target only takes one character to defeat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
RexAliquid wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
So it does poor damage even with Earth and forces you to spread it out so it's worth even less, with punishing action economy. It's just not doing what was expected or desired.

If two characters in a party can do 75% of target hp in two actions, the second to act wastes 2/3rds of their potential.

If instead, one of those characters does 25% of target hp to three targets, the target still dies in one round, but next round the second target only takes one character to defeat.

the problem is, past the earliest level the damage output of a kineticist using 3 or 4 action impulse routines vs a martial using strike, strike third action is so incredibly lopsided that the chance you actually save your martials more then one action over the course of a battle is pretty slim

level 11 kineticist outputs at best 4D8 or 4D10 depending on weather they using a 3 or 4 action routine (18 or 22 damage on average respectivly)
a barbarian at the same level can be putting out 2D12+14+2D6, or 34 damage on average with ONE action, about 60 whith two when you work in the decreased accuracy of the second strike

so comparing against all given hp values your impulse has saved your barbarian one action 2/3 of the time, but dropped an enemy a round early only 1 third of the time. for FOUR ACTIONS you have a reasonably good chance to save one character one action and a less reliable chance to have dropped an enemy a turn early. and sure, that sounds pretty alright right?

however, if there are one or two enemies, any character with a scaling spell dc and electric arc does this better, if there are three or four enemies, a flurry ranger does this MUCH better by just spreading their shots out to different targets (not technically aoe, but with the same end result over the two turns it takes a kineticist to use a 3 action impulse). It is only once you are hitting 5 enemies that you are actually achiving resourceless free wide damage in a way that has better performance than what other classes can already do.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole argument of "its okay to deal less damage because you are just filler for that last 25%" is just gross. No one wants to be the clean up boy, specially not people who want to play a character who "shoots blasts of energy to destroy foes".

So the argument reads less like "its fine because you contribute 25% of damage" and more like "you should be glad you are at least dealing 25% only X classes can deal more than that". No that's dumb and bad logic.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
So it does poor damage even with Earth and forces you to spread it out so it's worth even less, with punishing action economy. It's just not doing what was expected or desired.

If two characters in a party can do 75% of target hp in two actions, the second to act wastes 2/3rds of their potential.

If instead, one of those characters does 25% of target hp to three targets, the target still dies in one round, but next round the second target only takes one character to defeat.

Except the party doesn't know the enemy's HP. That's a level of optimization the system doesn't facilitate. All they see is that one character hurt it and the next character killed it.

And I have to agree with Temperans. The lengths some of you go make poor performance sound like a good thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm reasonably confident that some more single target options will make it to the full release. Right now we have fusion blast and horrid ignition, so they're not off the table entirely. We just need more accessibility at lower levels. Barrage blast could remove the 3 target restriction and I'll be happy with that. Other than feat support, a small boost such as con to damage will go a long way to alleviating the issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
aobst128 wrote:
I'm reasonably confident that some more single target options will make it to the full release. Right now we have fusion blast and horrid ignition, so they're not off the table entirely. We just need more accessibility at lower levels. Barrage blast could remove the 3 target restriction and I'll be happy with that. Other than feat support, a small boost such as con to damage will go a long way to alleviating the issue.

Stated my preference perfectly. The class doesn't need much in the single target department outside a small bump and/or a low lvl feat or two accessable to any kineticist. The rest of the class looks really fun outside of some fine tuning


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
So it does poor damage even with Earth and forces you to spread it out so it's worth even less, with punishing action economy. It's just not doing what was expected or desired.

If two characters in a party can do 75% of target hp in two actions, the second to act wastes 2/3rds of their potential.

If instead, one of those characters does 25% of target hp to three targets, the target still dies in one round, but next round the second target only takes one character to defeat.

the problem is, past the earliest level the damage output of a kineticist using 3 or 4 action impulse routines vs a martial using strike, strike third action is so incredibly lopsided that the chance you actually save your martials more then one action over the course of a battle is pretty slim[...]

so comparing against all given hp values your impulse has saved your barbarian one action 2/3 of the time, but dropped an enemy a round early only 1 third of the time. for FOUR ACTIONS you have a reasonably good chance to save one character one action and a less reliable chance to have dropped an enemy a turn early. and sure, that sounds pretty alright right?

How often are you walking around in a dangerous situation without your element drawn? A good opening salvo softens up the enemies for your single-target strikers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
RexAliquid wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
So it does poor damage even with Earth and forces you to spread it out so it's worth even less, with punishing action economy. It's just not doing what was expected or desired.

If two characters in a party can do 75% of target hp in two actions, the second to act wastes 2/3rds of their potential.

If instead, one of those characters does 25% of target hp to three targets, the target still dies in one round, but next round the second target only takes one character to defeat.

the problem is, past the earliest level the damage output of a kineticist using 3 or 4 action impulse routines vs a martial using strike, strike third action is so incredibly lopsided that the chance you actually save your martials more then one action over the course of a battle is pretty slim[...]

so comparing against all given hp values your impulse has saved your barbarian one action 2/3 of the time, but dropped an enemy a round early only 1 third of the time. for FOUR ACTIONS you have a reasonably good chance to save one character one action and a less reliable chance to have dropped an enemy a turn early. and sure, that sounds pretty alright right?

How often are you walking around in a dangerous situation without your element drawn? A good opening salvo softens up the enemies for your single-target strikers.

i am assuming they walk in with their element gathered, the action tax still applies however in order to do anything the follow up turn, since almost every action the class has requires an existing gather.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
So it does poor damage even with Earth and forces you to spread it out so it's worth even less, with punishing action economy. It's just not doing what was expected or desired.

If two characters in a party can do 75% of target hp in two actions, the second to act wastes 2/3rds of their potential.

If instead, one of those characters does 25% of target hp to three targets, the target still dies in one round, but next round the second target only takes one character to defeat.

the problem is, past the earliest level the damage output of a kineticist using 3 or 4 action impulse routines vs a martial using strike, strike third action is so incredibly lopsided that the chance you actually save your martials more then one action over the course of a battle is pretty slim[...]

so comparing against all given hp values your impulse has saved your barbarian one action 2/3 of the time, but dropped an enemy a round early only 1 third of the time. for FOUR ACTIONS you have a reasonably good chance to save one character one action and a less reliable chance to have dropped an enemy a turn early. and sure, that sounds pretty alright right?

How often are you walking around in a dangerous situation without your element drawn? A good opening salvo softens up the enemies for your single-target strikers.

Need an element gathered (the right element) - probable. Need to be in the right position immediately since the activity will likely be 3 actions - extremely unlikely. Need to go first - unlikely since they have shit perception.

251 to 300 of 339 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Rage of Elements Playtest / Kineticist Class / Disappointingly Low Damage All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.