| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm Legendary did only get 6 HP a level. That said they did get Elemental Defenses, and Element did determine their defenses. Also Cold and Electrical were their own elements in Legendary. Same with Aether.
I do kind of like the lack of Focus slots in the Playtest. Though Legendary could get around Focus slots by using an extra action or taking Burn which was much more temporary than in 1e.
I probably liked the one big blast with Flourish than the martial strikes, though enough strikes hitting with enough extra dice from handwraps can add up.
Legendary of course relied on spell attack rolls and spell DCs and eventually got to Legendary proficiency in those.
With Legendary the cantrip scales generally to about the same number of dice as the big blasts of the Playtest, though usually in d6s. The cantrip from Legendary usually has a little extra rider, at least on crits.
Both versions give the option of melee or ranged though Fire and Air have reduced ranges in Legendary compared to the Playtest version.
Legendary does have composite blasts, though they do similar damage to basic blasts but just deal half and half of the two damage types. Except for Blue Flame of course which just does a bit more damage than regular Fire.
The Legendary version has Infusions, which would be like the Impulses. These cost an extra action and a focus, but you can free action Burn to avoid the focus cost or extra action, for a total of 3 actions to cast, to avoid the focus cost. So a Gather Power with 1 Infusion would basically be like using a 3 action Impulse. But no need for a 4th action to Gather Element like in the Playstest version.
The Legendary version when using Infusions can have much better areas, as they scale as you level like Cantrips/Focus spells. In addition to a form Infusion you could also grab a Substance Infusion which can do different things. Though if you want to put both kinds of Infusion at one time you need 3 actions and either 2 focus points or 1 focus point and a burn free action.
There is an Aura Infusion but it is fairly different from the Kinetic Auras of the playtest. You get an aura and things that enter it or starts their turn in the aura takes half your kinetic blast damage. Which would probably be half of 10d6 by 20th level.
Chain Infusion is possibly not as good as Chain Blast. Maybe. Since Infusion reduces the damage by a spell level every hit, then again the first hit could be up to 10d6, which does let it potentially hit more targets. So maybe it is better.
While the base ranges of the Air and Fire Kinetic Blasts in Legendary are half of what they are in the Playtest there is a feat in Legendary that lets any element have 120 ft range, or 240 ft range for Air. Which is better range for Legendary, and all of the big things you can do build off the blast instead of being separate things like the Impulses. Kind of sad there wasn't an Extended Range feat in the Playtest.
Honestly I feel like Legendary tried to go for more of the 1e feel, and tried to duplicate as many of the 1e things Kineticists could do. Higher blast power but also Flourish so only one blast per round. But I do like a lot of the way the Playtest version was done. I would change some stuff, especially some of the numbers but I would be willing to play both versions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely prefer the direction Legendary Kineticist went with. People say it's more similar to 1e Kineticist, I'm not sure cause I didn't play 1e almost at all, but it's certainly closer to the blasting machine that defines what a Kineticist should be to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The homebrew is imbalanced is my opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's weird to refer to Legendary Kineticist as "homebrew" when it's by a reputable 3rd party publisher and an author who has worked for Paizo in the past.
Imo if it's not official paizo material it's home brew, even if it's been licensed and put up for sale.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's weird to refer to Legendary Kineticist as "homebrew" when it's by a reputable 3rd party publisher and an author who has worked for Paizo in the past.Imo if it's not official paizo material it's home brew, even if it's been licensed and put up for sale.
Heh, in all fairness tho, even if kinda-sorta technically correct, it's prolly better to differentiate the commercially available 3rd-party stuff with somebody's completely free homemade game stuff- so as to minimize confusion. ;p
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is third party, not homebrew. Those are two very different things. The author also was apparently one of the major people making Kineticists content for Paizo in 1e.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is third party, not homebrew. Those are two very different things. The author also was apparently one of the major people making Kineticists content for Paizo in 1e.
It's someone's homebrew that they sell: "homebrew" is anything made that are not from the official source books. This goes for other things too: Switch Homebrew is any software or app that isn't authorized by Nintendo [professionally made or not]. It's a distinction without meaning for 3rd party and homebrew: there's in no guarantee that a product made by an individual that doesn't sell it is of any better quality than one that is made to be sold. Now if you want to link quality to a specific homebrewer, author or company's track record that then can be a basis for comparison. But JUST the fact that someone sells it doesn't mean much IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well if we are talking quality many 3rd party groups have better quality than first party groups. But it seems like it absolutely isn't homebrew because that is something the DM brews at their home. While 3rd party is an actual company, some of which even involve people that actually worked for the first party company.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well if we are talking quality many 3rd party groups have better quality than first party groups.
The same can be said of those that do not sell their creations.
But it seems like it absolutely isn't homebrew because that is something the DM brews at their home.
It's generally accepted that homebrew is just 'not official material': it being 3rd party material doesn't mean it's not also homebrew too.
While 3rd party is an actual company, some of which even involve people that actually worked for the first party company.
Sure but it might also be a 'company' of 1 that just transfers the the material from their home game to the net for some extra cash: that's why I said that who does it is FAR more important than trying to artificially seperate the two. For instance, I'm more interested in a Mark Siefer creation he made for his own game than I an in a product from someone I don't know.
If you don't agree, then I'll agree to disagree: I've fully explained my stance IMO.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is third party, not homebrew. Those are two very different things. The author also was apparently one of the major people making Kineticists content for Paizo in 1e.It's someone's homebrew that they sell: "homebrew" is anything made that are not from the official source books. This goes for other things too: Switch Homebrew is any software or app that isn't authorized by Nintendo [professionally made or not]. It's a distinction without meaning for 3rd party and homebrew: there's in no guarantee that a product made by an individual that doesn't sell it is of any better quality than one that is made to be sold. Now if you want to link quality to a specific homebrewer, author or company's track record that then can be a basis for comparison. But JUST the fact that someone sells it doesn't mean much IMO.
Homebrew assumes the thing is not commercially available. It assumes a thing is brewed at home for the home. Not professional, not commercial. The term comes from making your own alcohol at home. Using the term homebrew for professional/commercial stuff is an oxymoron
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To return to the actual topic - the legendary kineticist is more engaging and effective, but the playtest kineticist comes with more interesting mechanics, even if they need more time in the oven.
Keep in mind, the Legendary version also regularly breaks 2e design standards, so the comparison is of limited usefulness.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that do comparisons of what's better isn't fair or useful here.
The Paizo Kineticist is a working progress version. The comparisons are useful only to take some ideas inspirations to suggest to Paizo. It's not time now to compara who is better but what can be learn with Legendary Kineticist and put as sugestions to Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Engaging and effective > interesting mechanics.
For the sheer fact that interesting =/= fun, but engaging does.
I mean, the difference is that this is a playtest and the other is a fully released product. And said product achieves much of its success from being massively overpowered, so that has to be taken into account as well.
As we have seen with the psychic, stuff can be really weak in the playtest (because you eliminated the resource management limitations that allowed for the proper power), but when the final release comes, it turns out really well.
And I think the playtest mechanics have more potential than the Legendary version, though whether that potential will be realised is unknowable at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is third party, not homebrew. Those are two very different things. The author also was apparently one of the major people making Kineticists content for Paizo in 1e.
That does quite the opposite of convincing me of anything tbh
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like what the Legendary did with elemental defense. I really, really want it back.What the title says, I am curious what people think when comparing what the homebrew brought compared to what the playtest has.
Mainly, cantrips vs "strikes", focus abilities vs overflow, burn as stun vs no burn at all, proficiency progression going to legendary for blasts vs master.
If the class releases anywhere near how it is in the playtest I believe I personally will continue to use the homebrew as I personally find it to be better thought out and implemented than how the playtest reads.
I am unfortunately not in any PF2E games at the moment, my group is running a few other systems right now so I probably wont get to play to see how it really feels. So I wanted to hear what anybody who has played with the Legendary Kineticist homebrew and the playtest, which do you prefer?
Good news for you! The Legendary Games Kineticist exists. If it does what you think the kineticist should do, talk to your GM about using it. If they don't want to then talk to them about why. It doesn't seem like the developers at PF2 want to make that exact same class for their game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn’t mean it was the same class as the PF1 kineticist. I meant the developers of PF2 might not want to make the exact same class as the Legendary games version of the kineticist for PF2. Why do I think that? Because I have read their play test.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They want to change it because the pf1e design has no actual place in 2e biome so it must be changed.
Obviously given the feedback on this forum this won't be the final version of the class for this edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They want to change it because the pf1e design has no actual place in 2e biome so it must be changed.
Obviously given the feedback on this forum this won't be the final version of the class for this edition.
That's not true at all, there are clear ways to take something from 1e and translate it in 2e terms. This is why we still have things like power attack, which itself is just vital strike from 1e except that it multiplies on a crit.
You don't HAVE to change it in its entirety when there is a clear way to do it in the new terms that doesn't break it, and something being broken works both ways, overpowered and under. They have focus spells, those are clear perfect uses for infusions instead of overflow which would remove the infinite use excuse for it to be so underwhelming in what it can do, they have drained or stunned for burn as an optional consequence for overchanneling in desperate situations, they have the same cones lines columns bursts and auras that can be used for form infusions, they have new more specific terms for status effects to be used for substance infusions, put flourish on it to make it once per turn but don't make its main thing provoke AoO, use con for attack or bonus damage so that it has SOME use outside of DCs and 1 ability that lets you use it to name a number of creatures to not be effected by an aura.
The change they are doing is not because the design has no place, it's change for change sake.
Big different between power attack, Wich had been changed to fit the biome
And 1e kineticist whose damage and versatility and resource management make for a combination that doesn't fit ultimately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Same damage means nothing when the damage between the two systems isn't the same nor health values. Plus, that's base damage. What 1e kineticist was functioning at base even half the time.
But it you want to remove most of the classes versatility. Locking it mostly be to single Target or self buffs and completely focus on blast's I guess that's an option.
One I don't expect to happen. Because it would require a complete rewrite. While revision happens often, I don't think I've seen a complete and utter change to that extent yet.
I still maintain 1e was a fundamentally flawed and broken system and should never receive anything more than a nod for lore reasons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playtest hasn't told them much beyond 5 people want 1e kineticist so far. Everyone else seems more interested in a bit more minor changes.
Like they definitely need a bit of a damage bump.
The placement of expert proficiency is in an odd space.
Generally though playtest is best to look at the product and figure out how to make that product function. Not to scrap it for pet preferences.I try to keep my suggestions to how the current playtest seems to function. Or is trying to.
Pretty sure if paizo wanted them to compete with fighters. They'd make them compete with fighters. Numbers aren't really the hard thing to solve.
But if you want the current version scrapped that's your perogative. Just don't be surprised if some people state that they like where current playtest is heading and just want to see some basic changes to better realize it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A fair number of playtesters leave the forums alone, play their playtest, submit surveys and then just let happen what happens.
Usually, people most upset with the playtest design are the most vocal on the forums. That doesn't always translate into a good sample of people's feelings about a class.
By all means, keep voicing your frustrations with the class as much as you want, but I think it is kind of obvious that Paizo has no interest in:
A. Completely replicating the Legendary Games Kineticist.
B. Providing a Ranged single target striker that is going to match damage per round or attack numbers with bowfighter or the gunslinger.
B is particularly true on a class who is going to has the potential to quickly switch damage types based on weaknesses or resistances. Which is not every Kineticist, but will probably be some kineticist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are people who will like anything, that's why I said in my original post, if this is near how it will be when released I am sticking with the Legendary Kineticist for my players.
But if you want the current version scrapped that's your perogative. Just don't be surprised if some people state that they like where current playtest is heading and just want to see some basic changes to better realize it.
thats quite fine?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the ones that prefer the legendary kineticist are the ones that pine for 1e blasting.
Seems relatively cut and dry. I'm sure there are outliers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the ones who asked for the class to be ported over want it to feel like it used to? Shocking.
Oh yeah cuz that's how balance is achieved.
Wait it's not.
Not very shocking though
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is probably in the best interest of both legendary games and Paizo to take different approaches on the class, rather than having too much mechanical overlap. This leaves the Legendary games version for what it does, and for players looking for this space, and then gives Paizo’s version a stronger sense of this is a unique new class built for our new system. I am excited to see more about the lore of Kineticists in Golarion with the new elements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the ones who asked for the class to be ported over want it to feel like it used to? Shocking.Oh yeah cuz that's how balance is achieved.
Wait it's not.
Not very shocking though
Very easy to balance it while keeping the same feel.
Just because you can't see that doesn't make it not true.
depends on what your idea of balanced is tbh
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is probably in the best interest of both legendary games and Paizo to take different approaches on the class, rather than having too much mechanical overlap. This leaves the Legendary games version for what it does, and for players looking for this space, and then gives Paizo’s version a stronger sense of this is a unique new class built for our new system. I am excited to see more about the lore of Kineticists in Golarion with the new elements.
Unicore. I think you are misunderstanding the entire spirit of the topic.
Some people saying that they liked some of Legendary Games' solutions obviously doesn't mean that these people want that Paizo simply copy it, it doesn't mean that the opinion is unnecessary, it just means that someone liked the solution they gave and that some players end up feeling lack of any similar mechanics, or they simply think that some proposals in the playtest could be improved and that Legendary's is an example of one that worked and can serve as an inspiration.
Please don't just say in the forum area that's exists precisely to discuss what we like or don't like and propose ideas, things like "I'm glad you liked their version, so go play their version there" as if to say he is not welcome here, or as if his opinion is worth less than anyone else's isn't a cool thing to do.
About the surveys, you are overestimating them, the designers themselves have said in the past that they are just a part of the analysis in the playtests that they even see on the forums and Redit to see opinions and analysis in order to gather as much information as possible to use in final class decisions.
Even because polls are not elections, the fact that many eventually like it, and especially don't care about a mechanic does not mean that it will stay as it is, designers can easily change one or more design features that no one has even commented on or even thought it was cool, but he thought it could get better after seeing someone's opinion/suggestion. This is enough to inspire any changes.
So take it easy with the people who want to make some change, if you don't agree with the criticism, explain you don't agree, say what you think their idea is wrong, help build the thing, don't just keep "blocking it", saying it's insignificant than a silent majority that don't write here, who including may well have the same opinions as many of the critics here, but don't want or don't think it's worth coming and commenting. The fact that they do not have an opinion here does not necessarily mean that they agree with how the class is being developed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would actually consider 'playtesting' legendary games kineticist as a (extremely loose) way to see how a class that focuses more on spell attacks and dcs works against the chassis in paizos kineticist. Obviously there are a ton more factors, and legendary kineticist might be a bit overtuned while paizos is maybe undertuned, but it could be a fun comparison.