| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After the release of the Kineticist playtest, I wrote a very long document containing all my thoughts & opinions on the class so far, and what I'd like to see changed or improved upon going forward.
I wanted to share it so that other people can read it, but also to see what other people think & discuss the class with them, as I have not had a lot of opportunity to talk about the class with others as of yet.
Without further ado, here is said document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lya7brnbNEdFrxnvNoFlQaFjl7OAr93wvPW8QeW Hqf8/edit?usp=sharing
the link doesn't seem to work
Ah yes, you're right. I'm not used to posting on this forum and how to embed links, so thank you to Guntermench for putting in a proper link.
Great write up! I was initially confused why so many people wanted burn back, but I found your arguments very convincing. That being said, I have to disagree with your conclusion that blast and impulses should be connected. Impulses having their own varying costs and damage let's them have much more fun and unique effects, even more so with the reintroduction of burn. Going the other way might hurt the "feel" of the class, as from preliminary playtesting it seems like elemental blast -> other impulse is a core feeling. I think a simple damage buff on impulses, giving the blasts the two-handed trait, and replacing overload with burn would a more fun solution than forcing the player to choose between bread and butter basic damage and other more unique effects.
Thank you for the feedback!
I will admit that I have been quite "converted" regarding blasts and impulses after several discussions I have had with a lot of other people. In fact, I have so many new things to say or change that I have elected to write a new document entirely, and to structure it in a better and more streamlined fashion. I will certainly take what you have said into account when expanding upon/writing this 2nd document.
Ah so this is you. Good to know.
I read this last night. Disagreed with most of it though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great write up! I was initially confused why so many people wanted burn back, but I found your arguments very convincing.
Hmmm... I can tell I'm going to disagree with things before I open up the link.
36 pages? Puts on reading classes and cracks back. Let's do this.
Yeah, pass me those when you're done.
EDIT: Ok, skimmed through that and like Martialmasters I "Disagreed with most of it though." Especially Burn. And overflow. And didn't I mention Burn was bad. Like really bad. Awful really... Now what was I saying... Oh yeah, Burn bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that Burn like we have in PF1 is just bad (it's basically a disguised HP chassis modification). But I'm not against a "Burn" similar to a Unleash. An ability that gives the Kineticist some good benefith (specially if this helps to compensate the lack of damage/actions/Overflow feats power) but that's endures just a few rounds and then make the char Drained.
Thank you all for your feedback!
It did make me realise that the document was definitely a fixer-upper, and that I had neglected to include a lot of aspects, opinions & thoughts other than either my own, or ones I agreed with.
To rectify that, I wrote a follow-up document, which is unfortunately even longer. Although if you did hate or dislike the first one, I'd encourage you to read this follow-up. Its frankly, objectively better. "Burn" or a burn-like mechanic that deals with HP does still have it's own section, but it is the smaller out of the 2 major sections about the class itself.
Here is The Document Link.
Hope you find it interesting!