Focus on impulses


Kineticist Class

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the class really needs legendary DC and a built in +3 to DC over time to match the item bonus that gives +3 to attack. This will allow us to land our blasts much easier. I'd rather have this than mastery in strikes.

A martial class really limits this class a lot, but I still love the martial like feat selection.i just want to deal damage with my impulses.

If they get rid of elemental blast and greatly expand impulses, I'd be decently happy.


Your terminology is making things confusing.

Our blast's are our basic attacks. Wich target ac.

Abilities granted by feats, like the overflow abilities. Are what targets saves.

Literally everything seems to be an impulse.

Considering kineticist gets blast's by default and these abilities that target saves are completely optional. I disagree.

These abilities are not meant to rival martial accuracy or they would be purely hit/miss and not have effects on failure.

This is how pf2e is designed. Saves have effects on failure to justify the lower accuracy.

I agree both blast's and overflow abilities currently are a bit weak though.

I think we could probably retool extract elements to be our damage fixer. Call it transmute element or something.

Overflow abilities need to stay around cantrip scaling or possibly become focus powers (in either case this means they need buffed as they seem currently below cantrip scaling)


They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I read "Focus on impulses" I thinked it's related to Focus Spells ;P

I like the idea to give up of Elemental Blast as a Strike variation and turn it like a 1-action attack cantrip with dmg dice increasing every 2 levels a Legendary DC. This remember the Fiery Body mechanics, is very flavorful and gives more importance to KAS at same time that improves the impulses.


Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
YuriP wrote:

When I read "Focus on impulses" I thinked it's related to Focus Spells ;P

I like the idea to give up of Elemental Blast as a Strike variation and turn it like a 1-action attack cantrip with dmg dice increasing every 2 levels a Legendary DC. This remember the Fiery Body mechanics, is very flavorful and gives more importance to KAS at same time that improves the impulses.

100% agreed

Sczarni

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

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

Why not? They can't be used more often than Focus Spells, really, with how much set up is required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
YuriP wrote:
I like the idea to give up of Elemental Blast as a Strike variation and turn it like a 1-action attack cantrip with dmg dice increasing every 2 levels a Legendary DC. This remember the Fiery Body mechanics, is very flavorful and gives more importance to KAS at same time that improves the impulses.

I'm sort of making peace with the blast mechanic as it is, though I do think this is worth exploring. How about a 1 action cantrip that does not innately scale, but instead can gain any bonus or penalties as if it were an unarmed strike, including fundamental runes (but not other runes, just to keep things sane)? Mostly same mechanics, but removes some of the annoying bits like needing to have your element gathered and the manipulate tag, and it could scale off your spell attack instead of weapon attack except you also get the benefit of fundamental weapon runes. This would probably require the sacrifice of the class's first level class feat, but it would probably be worth it.

The MC version should be nerfed, probably making it an impulse at least, but that's not unusual.

Or if that is too strong (and I can see how it would be, this is just my off the cuff thought) at least taking it off the Impulse tag would help this a lot. You can even add "Requirement: You have an element gathered" to the action to apply what I think is the important restriction while simultaneously making it not trigger AoO.

Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

Why not? They can't be used more often than Focus Spells, really, with how much set up is required.

I agree, Gather Element acts as the limiter for these abilities, and should justify at least caster focus spell level of damage + utility. To be honest, looking over the abilities, I think that is where they're at. Utlity is hard to guage, as is the value of different AoE, but it looks mostly correct.

Though I actually think it should be balanced at the martial focus spell level, which is slightly higher. They are martials after all.


Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

Why not? They can't be used more often than Focus Spells, really, with how much set up is required.

Hard limit on uses per day/ encounter or no go imo


AnimatedPaper wrote:
YuriP wrote:
I like the idea to give up of Elemental Blast as a Strike variation and turn it like a 1-action attack cantrip with dmg dice increasing every 2 levels a Legendary DC. This remember the Fiery Body mechanics, is very flavorful and gives more importance to KAS at same time that improves the impulses.

I'm sort of making peace with the blast mechanic as it is, though I do think this is worth exploring. How about a 1 action cantrip that does not innately scale, but instead can gain any bonus or penalties as if it were an unarmed strike, including fundamental runes (but not other runes, just to keep things sane)? Mostly same mechanics, but removes some of the annoying bits like needing to have your element gathered and the manipulate tag, and it could scale off your spell attack instead of weapon attack except you also get the benefit of fundamental weapon runes. This would probably require the sacrifice of the class's first level class feat, but it would probably be worth it.

The MC version should be nerfed, probably making it an impulse at least, but that's not unusual.

Or if that is too strong (and I can see how it would be, this is just my off the cuff thought) at least taking it off the Impulse tag would help this a lot. You can even add "Requirement: You have an element gathered" to the action to apply what I think is the important restriction while simultaneously making it not trigger AoO.

Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

Why not? They can't be used more often than Focus Spells, really, with how much set up is required.
I agree, Gather Element acts as the limiter for these abilities, and should justify at least caster focus...

If they were to become focus spells I don't see the reason for overflow to exist if I'm honest.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

Why not? They can't be used more often than Focus Spells, really, with how much set up is required.
Hard limit on uses per day/ encounter or no go imo

There are only a limited number of encounters in a day.

Let me explain.

If you have like 100 encounters in a day and you have a guy who can go all day every day for all 100 encounters, you might have a point.

But on avg, there are 3 encounters per day and wizard can throw stronger spells every round than whatever a kineticist can throw.

An elemental sorcerer with dangerous sorcery is even worse and can throw even STRONGER spells than whatever a kineticist can throw.

There's an issue when elemental sorcerer can do what a kineticist can do, but better.

Elemental sorcerer can deal more damage with each, gets a higher DC on their spells, and each spell only costs two actions.


There is nothing to explain verz.

Hard codified limit on uses per day/encounter.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:

There is nothing to explain verz.

Hard codified limit on uses per day/encounter.

It's like you are refusing to understand the point I am making on purpose.


Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

There is nothing to explain verz.

Hard codified limit on uses per day/encounter.

It's like you are refusing to understand the point I am making on purpose.

I understand it completely. It does not matter.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

There is nothing to explain verz.

Hard codified limit on uses per day/encounter.

It's like you are refusing to understand the point I am making on purpose.
I understand it completely. It does not matter.

No. Obviously you don't.

If you can cast 1 focus spell per encounter and you can use 1 overflow ability per encounter - They are both used the same amount of times per encounter, except the person with the focus spell has spell slots that they can ALSO cast in conjunction with it AND they all only cost two actions rather than 3-5 actions.


Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

There is nothing to explain verz.

Hard codified limit on uses per day/encounter.

It's like you are refusing to understand the point I am making on purpose.
I understand it completely. It does not matter.

No. Obviously you don't.

If you can cast 1 focus spell per encounter and you can use 1 overflow ability per encounter - They are both used the same amount of times per encounter, except the person with the focus spell has spell slots that they can ALSO cast in conjunction with it AND they all only cost two actions rather than 3-5 actions.

I understand that, it still doesn't matter. Hard codified limit, thanks.

But yeah, screw spell slots, focus points, and any other limiter.

Wizards should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want per day too.

Look, I'm for a power increase, I think you could increase the power a little right now with zero compromise even.

But if you want focus ability level power or above, you get what you pay for. That includes the limits.

At this point I am keenly Curious as to the finished products you have published. And for what system.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

There is nothing to explain verz.

Hard codified limit on uses per day/encounter.

It's like you are refusing to understand the point I am making on purpose.
I understand it completely. It does not matter.

No. Obviously you don't.

If you can cast 1 focus spell per encounter and you can use 1 overflow ability per encounter - They are both used the same amount of times per encounter, except the person with the focus spell has spell slots that they can ALSO cast in conjunction with it AND they all only cost two actions rather than 3-5 actions.

I understand that, it still doesn't matter. Hard codified limit, thanks.

But yeah, screw spell slots, focus points, and any other limiter.

Wizards should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want per day too.

Look, I'm for a power increase, I think you could increase the power a little right now with zero compromise even.

But if you want focus ability level power or above, you get what you pay for. That includes the limits.

At this point I am keenly Curious as to the finished products you have published. And for what system.

*Facepalm*

You're obviously not an honest actor. No one claims a wizard should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want to per day.


Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

There is nothing to explain verz.

Hard codified limit on uses per day/encounter.

It's like you are refusing to understand the point I am making on purpose.
I understand it completely. It does not matter.

No. Obviously you don't.

If you can cast 1 focus spell per encounter and you can use 1 overflow ability per encounter - They are both used the same amount of times per encounter, except the person with the focus spell has spell slots that they can ALSO cast in conjunction with it AND they all only cost two actions rather than 3-5 actions.

I understand that, it still doesn't matter. Hard codified limit, thanks.

But yeah, screw spell slots, focus points, and any other limiter.

Wizards should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want per day too.

Look, I'm for a power increase, I think you could increase the power a little right now with zero compromise even.

But if you want focus ability level power or above, you get what you pay for. That includes the limits.

At this point I am keenly Curious as to the finished products you have published. And for what system.

*Facepalm*

You're obviously not an honest actor. No one claims a wizard should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want to per day.

Exactly. It's not balanced. Neither is being able to cast as many focus spells as you want per encounter.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
If they were to become focus spells I don't see the reason for overflow to exist if I'm honest.

Yes, you’d want one or the other, as both serve the same purpose. And for the purpose of this class, I’d rather keep overflow/gather.

But that’s kind of my point. You keep saying there needs to be a limiter, but that limiter already exists. These abilities are simply tuned a bit under wear they need to be. Pure damage overflow abilities, where all the power budget is in dice instead of terrain and control effects, would help a lot of players. Even better if they are single target. Boring, sure, sometimes boring is okay if it enables the class fantasy.

And not something they’d need to playtest; boring no frills abilities are the easiest thing to balance.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

There is nothing to explain verz.

Hard codified limit on uses per day/encounter.

It's like you are refusing to understand the point I am making on purpose.
I understand it completely. It does not matter.

No. Obviously you don't.

If you can cast 1 focus spell per encounter and you can use 1 overflow ability per encounter - They are both used the same amount of times per encounter, except the person with the focus spell has spell slots that they can ALSO cast in conjunction with it AND they all only cost two actions rather than 3-5 actions.

I understand that, it still doesn't matter. Hard codified limit, thanks.

But yeah, screw spell slots, focus points, and any other limiter.

Wizards should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want per day too.

Look, I'm for a power increase, I think you could increase the power a little right now with zero compromise even.

But if you want focus ability level power or above, you get what you pay for. That includes the limits.

At this point I am keenly Curious as to the finished products you have published. And for what system.

*Facepalm*

You're obviously not an honest actor. No one claims a wizard should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want to per day.

Exactly. It's not balanced. Neither is being able to cast as many focus spells as you want per encounter.

Except those who can cast focus spells usually get spell slots of up to 10th level spells as well. If this is ALL I HAVE and I don't have spell slots to supplement the focus spells?


Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

There is nothing to explain verz.

Hard codified limit on uses per day/encounter.

It's like you are refusing to understand the point I am making on purpose.
I understand it completely. It does not matter.

No. Obviously you don't.

If you can cast 1 focus spell per encounter and you can use 1 overflow ability per encounter - They are both used the same amount of times per encounter, except the person with the focus spell has spell slots that they can ALSO cast in conjunction with it AND they all only cost two actions rather than 3-5 actions.

I understand that, it still doesn't matter. Hard codified limit, thanks.

But yeah, screw spell slots, focus points, and any other limiter.

Wizards should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want per day too.

Look, I'm for a power increase, I think you could increase the power a little right now with zero compromise even.

But if you want focus ability level power or above, you get what you pay for. That includes the limits.

At this point I am keenly Curious as to the finished products you have published. And for what system.

*Facepalm*

You're obviously not an honest actor. No one claims a wizard should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want to per day.

Exactly. It's not balanced. Neither is being able to cast as many focus spells as you want per encounter.
Except those who can cast focus spells usually get spell slots of up to 10th level spells as well. If this is ALL I HAVE and I don't have spell slots to supplement the focus spells?

Monks

Champions

Try again


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
If they were to become focus spells I don't see the reason for overflow to exist if I'm honest.

Yes, you’d want one or the other, as both serve the same purpose. And for the purpose of this class, I’d rather keep overflow/gather.

But that’s kind of my point. You keep saying there needs to be a limiter, but that limiter already exists. These abilities are simply tuned a bit under wear they need to be. Pure damage overflow abilities, where all the power budget is in dice instead of terrain and control effects, would help a lot of players. Even better if they are single target. Boring, sure, sometimes boring is okay if it enables the class fantasy.

And not something they’d need to playtest; boring no frills abilities are the easiest thing to balance.

I agree the power of current overflow abilities can be brought up. But not up to your level of focus spells until they themselves become focus spells.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:

There is nothing to explain verz.

Hard codified limit on uses per day/encounter.

It's like you are refusing to understand the point I am making on purpose.
I understand it completely. It does not matter.

No. Obviously you don't.

If you can cast 1 focus spell per encounter and you can use 1 overflow ability per encounter - They are both used the same amount of times per encounter, except the person with the focus spell has spell slots that they can ALSO cast in conjunction with it AND they all only cost two actions rather than 3-5 actions.

I understand that, it still doesn't matter. Hard codified limit, thanks.

But yeah, screw spell slots, focus points, and any other limiter.

Wizards should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want per day too.

Look, I'm for a power increase, I think you could increase the power a little right now with zero compromise even.

But if you want focus ability level power or above, you get what you pay for. That includes the limits.

At this point I am keenly Curious as to the finished products you have published. And for what system.

*Facepalm*

You're obviously not an honest actor. No one claims a wizard should be able to cast as many of their max level spells they want to per day.

Exactly. It's not balanced. Neither is being able to cast as many focus spells as you want per encounter.
Except those who can cast focus spells usually get spell slots of up to 10th level spells as well. If this is ALL I HAVE and I don't have spell slots to supplement the focus spells?

Monks

Champions

Try again

u·su·al·ly

/ˈyo͞oZH(o͞o)əlē/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
under normal conditions; generally.
"he usually arrives home about one o'clock"


Usually doesn't mean anything though ultimately for this debate. Precedent already exists and in fact is more applicable to the comparison seeing how kineticist is a martial class in this playtest.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

There is not a hard set limit to the number of encounters a party will face at time. Most PCs probably face just over 0 encounters a day over the course of their life time. Dungeons often have 5 to 10 encounters in them and some can be avoid, possibly, but often are not.

It is not uncommon for parties to face only one big encounter in a day, and if it comes a surprise, a caster might be left with no useable spells at all for the encounter, like a psychic up against a powerful golem.

Instead of saying “balance must be around this specific play style that I believe to be optimal.” Maybe try playtesting it yourself and providing survey feedback that helps the developers see what you enjoyed and what frustrated you in play.

If the class itself is unappealing, then don’t play test it. Write it off as a class you will never play, and play something else. Or look for third party material that better suits what you want and talk to your table about using it.

PF2 is a big modular game, but it has a development team that has specific goals and limits that they are working with for the core line product. It is usually pretty easy to tell what those goals are with a new class within a couple days of reading the play test material.

I was super bummed that the magus final class dropped the spell strike feature from the play test that let it work to boost their saving throw spells. The play test magus was a super interesting debuffer that could play coy and calculating until they delivered their big strike. People hated two rolls though and the class became single target striker with attack rolls and a feat option to combine a weapon attack into an otherwise ordinary save spell. I wanted the interesting complexity of the latest class, but the game didn’t. In the end, I have decided I like the wizard still more than I like trying to find a table to let me play the play test magus still, but if I had a player come to me and ask to play the legendary games kineticist, I would look it over and ask the table about it. Same as I would if a player wanted to be a gunslinger in a quest for the ever flame campaign and I wasn’t sure if it would be a good fit or not.

But I also warn my players that I tend to fold encounters on to each other and have fights where the PCs might not be able to win. One encounter that is 5 spread out over rounds in waves is very common in my games and large maps where the battle can change dynamically are something I am known for as a GM. I don’t assume my play style is common, but it is very well supported by PF2 and my players really enjoy things like having a moving fight between two boats floating down a turbulent river, or being followed by an enemy into a dungeon where the hazards and creatures of that dungeon are out to kill both groups. I think this version of the kineticist is going to prove very popular at my table once it gets dialed in.

Edit: I ended up getting the class I was looking for more in the gunslinger sniper than the Magus. So express what you want and you might eventually get it, although the folks looking for an all day, primarily single target blaster with the ability to juice blasts a couple of times an encounter but still have pretty good utility and support have that class in PF2 currently, in the form of the psychic.


100% agreed unicore

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Usually doesn't mean anything though ultimately for this debate. Precedent already exists and in fact is more applicable to the comparison seeing how kineticist is a martial class in this playtest.

Except champion has the highest AC in the game and the best reaction in the game

Monk has flurry of blows and the best unarmored AC in the game.

What do kineticists have?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

There is not a hard set limit to the number of encounters a party will face at time. Most PCs probably face just over 0 encounters a day over the course of their life time. Dungeons often have 5 to 10 encounters in them and some can be avoid, possibly, but often are not.

It is not uncommon for parties to face only one big encounter in a day, and if it comes a surprise, a caster might be left with no useable spells at all for the encounter, like a psychic up against a powerful golem.

Instead of saying “balance must be around this specific play style that I believe to be optimal.” Maybe try playtesting it yourself and providing survey feedback that helps the developers see what you enjoyed and what frustrated you in play.

If the class itself is unappealing, then don’t play test it. Write it off as a class you will never play, and play something else. Or look for third party material that better suits what you want and talk to your table about using it.

PF2 is a big modular game, but it has a development team that has specific goals and limits that they are working with for the core line product. It is usually pretty easy to tell what those goals are with a new class within a couple days of reading the play test material.

I was super bummed that the magus final class dropped the spell strike feature from the play test that let it work to boost their saving throw spells. The play test magus was a super interesting debuffer that could play coy and calculating until they delivered their big strike. People hated two rolls though and the class became single target striker with attack rolls and a feat option to combine a weapon attack into an otherwise ordinary save spell. I wanted the interesting complexity of the latest class, but the game didn’t. In the end, I have decided I like the wizard still more than I like trying to find a table to let me play the play test magus still, but if I had a player come to me and ask to play the legendary games kineticist, I would look it over and ask the table...

Except I want this class.. without spell slots at all. As spells take up a huge power budget.

Psychics have spells.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

But you don’t want this class because this is not a single target striker class.


Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Usually doesn't mean anything though ultimately for this debate. Precedent already exists and in fact is more applicable to the comparison seeing how kineticist is a martial class in this playtest.

Except champion has the highest AC in the game and the best reaction in the game

Monk has flurry of blows and the best unarmored AC in the game.

What do kineticists have?

Trying answering this reply instead of glossing over it like you have over 8 times now.

Where did I say that the class is fine

I have in fact multiple times stated they could stand to be buffed as is, without compromise.

It's just not as far as you would take this by the looks.

Or will you choose to not reply to this directly, yet again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I ran a few mock combats with friends last night to playtest at mid-high levels, and I confess at no point did I manage to fit in a single impulse that did damage other than my elemental blast (which is fine damage for eath, comparable to a longsword at range).

I turned on some defenses, I created a stone wall, I summoned an elemental friend, etc. and I had fun. I'm not sure I strictly did enough damage to compel enemies to attack me instead of someone else, but if they had they would have had a bad time.

I'm not sure I want to necessarily focus on offensive impulses because I don't think my class DC ever came up and I wasn't mad about it.


Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

I'm just going to go back to where this started, why do you think being better than a cantrip is a "absolutely not" thing? like, I kinda agree with you for your latter arguments, impulses should be worse than focus spells, whether that disadvantage comes at action cost or raw damage, there should be a downside to make up for their repeated use, but cantrips can already be used infinitely, and cost a single ancestry feat to get, or you can get two with a class feat. Impulses are one for one class feat, shouldn't they be stronger than a basic cantrip?


Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

I'm just going to go back to where this started, why do you think being better than a cantrip is a "absolutely not" thing? like, I kinda agree with you for your latter arguments, impulses should be worse than focus spells, whether that disadvantage comes at action cost or raw damage, there should be a downside to make up for their repeated use, but cantrips can already be used infinitely, and cost a single ancestry feat to get, or you can get two with a class feat. Impulses are one for one class feat, shouldn't they be stronger than a basic cantrip?

That's not how the game works.

It's a resourceless area of effect spell. It cannot be strong.

Now, does that mean I think overflow is justified on most? No.

Do I think they need buffed? Yes. Even now most are not on par with cantrips.

Higher or lower level feats doesn't necessarily mean more or less power in this game either. But rather represents more options and complexity.

Sure there are exceptions at very high levels. Like suddenly being able to just critical on a 19.


Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

I'm just going to go back to where this started, why do you think being better than a cantrip is a "absolutely not" thing? like, I kinda agree with you for your latter arguments, impulses should be worse than focus spells, whether that disadvantage comes at action cost or raw damage, there should be a downside to make up for their repeated use, but cantrips can already be used infinitely, and cost a single ancestry feat to get, or you can get two with a class feat. Impulses are one for one class feat, shouldn't they be stronger than a basic cantrip?

That's not how the game works.

It's a resourceless area of effect spell. It cannot be strong.

Now, does that mean I think overflow is justified on most? No.

Do I think they need buffed? Yes. Even now most are not on par with cantrips.

Higher or lower level feats doesn't necessarily mean more or less power in this game either. But rather represents more options and complexity.

Sure there are exceptions at very high levels. Like suddenly being able to just critical on a 19.

But if an impulse deals cantrip damage, but to more characters, is that not better than a cantrip?


Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

I'm just going to go back to where this started, why do you think being better than a cantrip is a "absolutely not" thing? like, I kinda agree with you for your latter arguments, impulses should be worse than focus spells, whether that disadvantage comes at action cost or raw damage, there should be a downside to make up for their repeated use, but cantrips can already be used infinitely, and cost a single ancestry feat to get, or you can get two with a class feat. Impulses are one for one class feat, shouldn't they be stronger than a basic cantrip?

That's not how the game works.

It's a resourceless area of effect spell. It cannot be strong.

Now, does that mean I think overflow is justified on most? No.

Do I think they need buffed? Yes. Even now most are not on par with cantrips.

Higher or lower level feats doesn't necessarily mean more or less power in this game either. But rather represents more options and complexity.

Sure there are exceptions at very high levels. Like suddenly being able to just critical on a 19.

But if an impulse deals cantrip damage, but to more characters, is that not better than a cantrip?

Depends on the ability. And not necessarily no.

This reminds me of the other discussion on the reduced value of AOE in 2e Wich I largely agreed with.

It sucks having your character weighted in such a way that doesn't play well.

Reminds me of rangers in 5e.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I ran a few mock combats with friends last night to playtest at mid-high levels, and I confess at no point did I manage to fit in a single impulse that did damage other than my elemental blast (which is fine damage for eath, comparable to a longsword at range).

I turned on some defenses, I created a stone wall, I summoned an elemental friend, etc. and I had fun. I'm not sure I strictly did enough damage to compel enemies to attack me instead of someone else, but if they had they would have had a bad time.

I'm not sure I want to necessarily focus on offensive impulses because I don't think my class DC ever came up and I wasn't mad about it.

Sure. That's one way to play. But many of us want to use those damaging impulses though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I ran a few mock combats with friends last night to playtest at mid-high levels, and I confess at no point did I manage to fit in a single impulse that did damage other than my elemental blast (which is fine damage for eath, comparable to a longsword at range).

I turned on some defenses, I created a stone wall, I summoned an elemental friend, etc. and I had fun. I'm not sure I strictly did enough damage to compel enemies to attack me instead of someone else, but if they had they would have had a bad time.

I'm not sure I want to necessarily focus on offensive impulses because I don't think my class DC ever came up and I wasn't mad about it.

Sure. That's one way to play. But many of us want to use those damaging impulses though.

Tongue in cheek but

What damaging impulses . :) In the very least I think we do agree they need buffed a bit.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
Temperans wrote:

They really should be above cantrip level, not at the same level.

And before someone says "oh you just want fighter level". No. Stop that there is a big difference between above cantrip and fighter level.

If they were made into focus spells absolutely.

If not absolutely not

I'm just going to go back to where this started, why do you think being better than a cantrip is a "absolutely not" thing? like, I kinda agree with you for your latter arguments, impulses should be worse than focus spells, whether that disadvantage comes at action cost or raw damage, there should be a downside to make up for their repeated use, but cantrips can already be used infinitely, and cost a single ancestry feat to get, or you can get two with a class feat. Impulses are one for one class feat, shouldn't they be stronger than a basic cantrip?

That's not how the game works.

It's a resourceless area of effect spell. It cannot be strong.

Now, does that mean I think overflow is justified on most? No.

Do I think they need buffed? Yes. Even now most are not on par with cantrips.

Higher or lower level feats doesn't necessarily mean more or less power in this game either. But rather represents more options and complexity.

Sure there are exceptions at very high levels. Like suddenly being able to just critical on a 19.

But if an impulse deals cantrip damage, but to more characters, is that not better than a cantrip?

Not if 'part of those characters' are your own party members.


Pronate11 wrote:
Verzen wrote:


But if an impulse deals cantrip damage, but to more characters, is that not better than a cantrip?
Not if 'part of those characters' are your own party members.
Honestly, and I mean this with upmost respect, skill issue. it is not hard to position an AoE to not hit any allies in most cases. and in the times where you can't, thats where respectable single target damage should come in. Thats why I don't think you should need to choose between AoE and single target, both are important.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pronate11 wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Verzen wrote:


But if an impulse deals cantrip damage, but to more characters, is that not better than a cantrip?
Not if 'part of those characters' are your own party members.
Honestly, and I mean this with upmost respect, skill issue. it is not hard to position an AoE to not hit any allies in most cases. and in the times where you can't, thats where respectable single target damage should come in. Thats why I don't think you should need to choose between AoE and single target, both are important.

So you agree that we should probably get some single target overflow abilities? Something that can be used if too many allies are in the way?


Verzen wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Pronate11 wrote:
Verzen wrote:


But if an impulse deals cantrip damage, but to more characters, is that not better than a cantrip?
Not if 'part of those characters' are your own party members.
Honestly, and I mean this with upmost respect, skill issue. it is not hard to position an AoE to not hit any allies in most cases. and in the times where you can't, thats where respectable single target damage should come in. Thats why I don't think you should need to choose between AoE and single target, both are important.
So you agree that we should probably get some single target overflow abilities? Something that can be used if too many allies are in the way?

I have never said differently.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

From experience I think the big thing that kept me from wanting to use offensive impulses is that trying to work "spend an action to gather" into a three action routine was a pain. Particularly since the non-offensive impulses didn't have overflow so I could combine them with stone shield, a basic blast, a sustain, etc.

We didn't have access to haste since it was all kineticists. It might have been different if I had a 4th action (the kineticist is currently a very "stand in one place" class because of the action economy.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

From experience I think the big thing that kept me from wanting to use offensive impulses is that trying to work "spend an action to gather" into a three action routine was a pain. Particularly since the non-offensive impulses didn't have overflow so I could combine them with stone shield, a basic blast, a sustain, etc.

We didn't have access to haste since it was all kineticists. It might have been different if I had a 4th action (the kineticist is currently a very "stand in one place" class because of the action economy.)

The "stand in the place where you are" phenom seems more of an earth thing than an air thing, since you get boosts to your speed. I also found myself not using the damaging saving throw feats that often past level 3. Barrage blast is just generally better when you have enough targets to consider it...even with the air blast.


Unicore wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

From experience I think the big thing that kept me from wanting to use offensive impulses is that trying to work "spend an action to gather" into a three action routine was a pain. Particularly since the non-offensive impulses didn't have overflow so I could combine them with stone shield, a basic blast, a sustain, etc.

We didn't have access to haste since it was all kineticists. It might have been different if I had a 4th action (the kineticist is currently a very "stand in one place" class because of the action economy.)

The "stand in the place where you are" phenom seems more of an earth thing than an air thing, since you get boosts to your speed. I also found myself not using the damaging saving throw feats that often past level 3. Barrage blast is just generally better when you have enough targets to consider it...even with the air blast.

This is what I've noticed as well. Our blast's seem better at blasting. Quite a bit at when you invest some feats into them.

Barrage is.. Annoying given our already low accuracy for follow up attacks. I'd prefer it is barrage was 2 actions 2 1 attacks but no map incursion


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think "stand in one place" is a consequence of the overflow abilities (basically all of the offensive impulses other than your basic blast).

You could move then use a two action overflow impulse, then on your second turn move, gather, basic blast to make a two turn loop, but I think ending up with "gather, overflow impulse" as a one turn loop is a thing you can end up with fairly easily only deviating when you need to move.

Though Cycling Blast is probably an enormous action economy helper in case you're dual gate.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's not resourceless though. It usually eats up all your actions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
If they were to become focus spells I don't see the reason for overflow to exist if I'm honest.

Yes, you’d want one or the other, as both serve the same purpose. And for the purpose of this class, I’d rather keep overflow/gather.

But that’s kind of my point. You keep saying there needs to be a limiter, but that limiter already exists. These abilities are simply tuned a bit under wear they need to be. Pure damage overflow abilities, where all the power budget is in dice instead of terrain and control effects, would help a lot of players. Even better if they are single target. Boring, sure, sometimes boring is okay if it enables the class fantasy.

And not something they’d need to playtest; boring no frills abilities are the easiest thing to balance.

I agree the power of current overflow abilities can be brought up. But not up to your level of focus spells until they themselves become focus spells.

They can be straight-up word for word copies of existing focus spells, and the overflow trait would still ensure that they were not as powerful as focus spells. In fact, they could across the board be more powerful, and that action penalty would still keep things balanced.

This is really not as much of an issue as you're assuming. Though, on reflection, I could imagine a focus spell that allowed you to gather element as a free action. That's in line with several focus spells we already have, and would maintain the integrity of most of the class's balancing while allowing for a more fluid playstyle.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
If they were to become focus spells I don't see the reason for overflow to exist if I'm honest.

Yes, you’d want one or the other, as both serve the same purpose. And for the purpose of this class, I’d rather keep overflow/gather.

But that’s kind of my point. You keep saying there needs to be a limiter, but that limiter already exists. These abilities are simply tuned a bit under wear they need to be. Pure damage overflow abilities, where all the power budget is in dice instead of terrain and control effects, would help a lot of players. Even better if they are single target. Boring, sure, sometimes boring is okay if it enables the class fantasy.

And not something they’d need to playtest; boring no frills abilities are the easiest thing to balance.

I agree the power of current overflow abilities can be brought up. But not up to your level of focus spells until they themselves become focus spells.

They can be straight-up word for word copies of existing focus spells, and the overflow trait would still ensure that they were not as powerful as focus spells. In fact, they could across the board be more powerful, and that action penalty would still keep things balanced.

This is really not as much of an issue as you're assuming. Though, on reflection, I could imagine a focus spell that allowed you to gather element as a free action. That's in line with several focus spells we already have, and would maintain the integrity of most of the class's balancing while allowing for a more fluid playstyle.

Personally, I'd rather take HP damage similar to burn to use gather element as a free action.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
If they were to become focus spells I don't see the reason for overflow to exist if I'm honest.

Yes, you’d want one or the other, as both serve the same purpose. And for the purpose of this class, I’d rather keep overflow/gather.

But that’s kind of my point. You keep saying there needs to be a limiter, but that limiter already exists. These abilities are simply tuned a bit under wear they need to be. Pure damage overflow abilities, where all the power budget is in dice instead of terrain and control effects, would help a lot of players. Even better if they are single target. Boring, sure, sometimes boring is okay if it enables the class fantasy.

And not something they’d need to playtest; boring no frills abilities are the easiest thing to balance.

I agree the power of current overflow abilities can be brought up. But not up to your level of focus spells until they themselves become focus spells.

They can be straight-up word for word copies of existing focus spells, and the overflow trait would still ensure that they were not as powerful as focus spells. In fact, they could across the board be more powerful, and that action penalty would still keep things balanced.

This is really not as much of an issue as you're assuming. Though, on reflection, I could imagine a focus spell that allowed you to gather element as a free action. That's in line with several focus spells we already have, and would maintain the integrity of most of the class's balancing while allowing for a more fluid playstyle.

Hard disagree

1 to 50 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rage of Elements Playtest / Kineticist Class / Focus on impulses All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.