A simple proposal to bring back Burn


Kineticist Class


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

How about reintroducing it in limited form as a high-level once per day capstone feat called "Burn" that gives big boosts to a single impulse in return for a big penalty?

Maybe a boost the DC and treat the result as one success level higher in return for burning out your inner gate for the day, forcing you to rely on Adapt Element to gather rather than Gather Element for the rest if the day.

I for one hated the old burn, but it was such an integral part of the class that I feel it should get at least a token nod in 2e. What do you think? Would that, or something similar, work out?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like the concept of spending HP for power.

But I can be brought around to the idea so long as there is a hard cap per day .


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Martialmasters wrote:

I don't like the concept of spending HP for power.

But I can be brought around to the idea so long as there is a hard cap per day.

I can't stand penalizing class abilities on principle, but it doesn't bother me quite as much as part of a rare capstone feat that gives fans burn back, allows them to feel really powerful, and is unlikely to be disruptive to most game tables.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like once per day abilities idea. This goes against all concept behind the Kineticist.

Liberty's Edge

Why not use the Drained Condition?

Something along the lines of applying Drained 1 to use and Overflow ability and not having the gathered Element dissipate with the ability to have it stack up to three times? It's quite punishing and cannot be undone by simple healing but instead must be Full Rest'd off. Plus the consequences are a bit farther reaching than merely lowering HP so it has more of a risk/reward angle to it.

Or better yet, create a new Condition: Burn - Functions as the Drained Condition except each new application stacks by +1 each time it's used to a max of Burn 3 at which point it cannot be used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My presently working concept for Burn that I've posted on Reddit a few times is just a free action Gather that hurts you for either your level or 1/2 your level.

I feel like action compression or action saving is a much better means of going about utilizing the concept of Burn, while also making it 100% opt in, and simple and straight forward enough to not cause a frick ton of math needing to be done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
I don't like once per day abilities idea. This goes against all concept behind the Kineticist.

There is a reason burn doesn't currently exist.

HP for power is never balanced because there is no real consequences until you are dead.

Sure you are closer to death. That results in deep zero impact on your abilities until it are in fact, dying.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
YuriP wrote:
I don't like once per day abilities idea. This goes against all concept behind the Kineticist.

There is a reason burn doesn't currently exist.

HP for power is never balanced because there is no real consequences until you are dead.

Sure you are closer to death. That results in deep zero impact on your abilities until it are in fact, dying.

Have you ever played an MMORPG? In your life?

"Dead players can't deal damage" is a real consequence and putting yourself more and more at risk is a real consequence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
YuriP wrote:
I don't like once per day abilities idea. This goes against all concept behind the Kineticist.

There is a reason burn doesn't currently exist.

HP for power is never balanced because there is no real consequences until you are dead.

Sure you are closer to death. That results in deep zero impact on your abilities until it are in fact, dying.

Have you ever played an MMORPG? In your life?

"Dead players can't deal damage" is a real consequence and putting yourself more and more at risk is a real consequence.

I have. Hence a common reply in both MMO and fighting games

Just don't get hit.

Also

Skill issue


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
There is a reason burn doesn't currently exist.

I've got an answer for that but it's be overly snarky. ;)


I like the idea of using hit points as a resource. You are using your own life energy to power your abilities. I think their should a restriction on how many hps you can spend at one and overall. Or you are immune to loosing hit points fro x amount of time. I loved burn in 1st and having to managed can I afford to spend the HP's now or should I be more conserving.

Losing hps vs spending them are different. But that then begs the question of book keeping

Though on having Burn spells (focus points) but got thinking an thought seems similar to impulse feats.

I think of Avatar and think by caring elements around or what is around you and using that vs the current concept. I think that would be significantly a better option. An may be easier to build around.

Also I am not well adjusted to 2E as I have found and seen too many issues with the system, so I cant truly come up with an idea that fits in the system. The Kineticist actually renewed interest in 2E. This was by far my favorite class but felt they screwed the overall concept up.

As for burn itself I don't see it being a good thematic ability. I like the concept of it.


Micheal Smith wrote:

I like the idea of using hit points as a resource. You are using your own life energy to power your abilities. I think their should a restriction on how many hps you can spend at one and overall. Or you are immune to loosing hit points fro x amount of time. I loved burn in 1st and having to managed can I afford to spend the HP's now or should I be more conserving.

Losing hps vs spending them are different. But that then begs the question of book keeping

Though on having Burn spells (focus points) but got thinking an thought seems similar to impulse feats.

I think of Avatar and think by caring elements around or what is around you and using that vs the current concept. I think that would be significantly a better option. An may be easier to build around.

Also I am not well adjusted to 2E as I have found and seen too many issues with the system, so I cant truly come up with an idea that fits in the system. The Kineticist actually renewed interest in 2E. This was by far my favorite class but felt they screwed the overall concept up.

As for burn itself I don't see it being a good thematic ability. I like the concept of it.

I am an inverse of you. I see too many issues with 1e so I couldn't get into it. 2e I see most of those issues as solved and have very few complaints on the system. But I'm also capable of accepting something is balanced and I just don't like how it plays.

Like gunslinger or swashbuckler.


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

Let's not go backwards now. Burn, if reintroduced, will need to be different than it was in 1e.

Martialmasters wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Martialmasters wrote:
YuriP wrote:
I don't like once per day abilities idea. This goes against all concept behind the Kineticist.

There is a reason burn doesn't currently exist.

HP for power is never balanced because there is no real consequences until you are dead.

Sure you are closer to death. That results in deep zero impact on your abilities until it are in fact, dying.

Have you ever played an MMORPG? In your life?

"Dead players can't deal damage" is a real consequence and putting yourself more and more at risk is a real consequence.

I have. Hence a common reply in both MMO and fighting games

Just don't get hit.

Also

Skill issue

LOL. I survived en entire 1st Edition campaign (from level 1 to 9) on less than 30 hit points. It was surprisingly easy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
HP for power is never balanced because there is no real consequences until you are dead.

Sorry but I don't understand this need of have immediate consequences.

What's the consequence of use a focus point or a spellslot beyond have less focus point until refocus and spellslot in that day? Why a char use a focus point or a spellslot or even a once per day ability it's OK but use an ability that uses HP not?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

HP as a resource in RPGs only work if healing is hard and have to be overly cautious with it.

In PF2 where you blink and is at full HP does not really work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A clear limit for how much HP you can loose

How about something like IDK, up to your constitution bonus. How about making it riskier by doing 3+con?

(It would be no different from cleric having 3+Cha heals/harms)


Kyrone wrote:

HP as a resource in RPGs only work if healing is hard and have to be overly cautious with it.

In PF2 where you blink and is at full HP does not really work.

This is why you make it harder to heal than normal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:

HP as a resource in RPGs only work if healing is hard and have to be overly cautious with it.

In PF2 where you blink and is at full HP does not really work.

I repeat the same question? What's the big difference in recover from focus point and HP?

The answer is you need someone with a healing spell or a battle medicine or a potion to heal you! So basically you are transferring the cost to other. During encounters usually this comes from other party member (favor some good party integration and strategies).
Out of combat your HP can be recovered just like any focus point. If someone has Medicine or some healing focus spell.

OK, due the number being higher you can have more HP uses than focus but yet this also a risk. How much you use more closer to a knock out you are.

And about healing is hard, you already played some PC JRPG/MMORPG with classes able to use HP as source? These games usually have strong healers that can heal these characters but heal a character costs someone action (do you notice the similarity?) to heal and also increase the risk to char down (this time costing a ress).

So the fact of being able to use the HP as cost in the end will probably be paid as someone action and other resource later. So don't treat HP as a lesser power source or a thing with "no real consequences" it's the opposite it's a complex, manageable, and interesting resource.


YuriP wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

HP as a resource in RPGs only work if healing is hard and have to be overly cautious with it.

In PF2 where you blink and is at full HP does not really work.

I repeat the same question? What's the big difference in recover from focus point and HP?

The answer is you need someone with a healing spell or a battle medicine or a potion to heal you! So basically you are transferring the cost to other. During encounters usually this comes from other party member (favor some good party integration and strategies).
Out of combat your HP can be recovered just like any focus point. If someone has Medicine or some healing focus spell.

OK, due the number being higher you can have more HP uses than focus but yet this also a risk. How much you use more closer to a knock out you are.

And about healing is hard, you already played some PC JRPG/MMORPG with classes able to use HP as source? These games usually have strong healers that can heal these characters but heal a character costs someone action (do you notice the similarity?) to heal and also increase the risk to char down (this time costing a ress).

So the fact of being able to use the HP as cost in the end will probably be paid as someone action and other resource later. So don't treat HP as a lesser power source or a thing with "no real consequences" it's the opposite it's a complex, manageable, and interesting resource.

Ability to recover in battle first and foremost, the closest Strain Mind from Psychic per example is once per hour.

And yes played a lot of games with HP as a resource... and now what most of those classes have in common? They usually don't want to be healed because of passives or an ability that makes them at their strongest at 1 HP and the abilities takes like 50% or 90% of their HP so they are actually in range to use the abilites that are actually worth using in the very low hp range. Dark Knight from Bravely Default, Hexer and Yggdroid from Etrian Odyssey and so on.


Kyrone wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Kyrone wrote:

HP as a resource in RPGs only work if healing is hard and have to be overly cautious with it.

In PF2 where you blink and is at full HP does not really work.

I repeat the same question? What's the big difference in recover from focus point and HP?

The answer is you need someone with a healing spell or a battle medicine or a potion to heal you! So basically you are transferring the cost to other. During encounters usually this comes from other party member (favor some good party integration and strategies).
Out of combat your HP can be recovered just like any focus point. If someone has Medicine or some healing focus spell.

OK, due the number being higher you can have more HP uses than focus but yet this also a risk. How much you use more closer to a knock out you are.

And about healing is hard, you already played some PC JRPG/MMORPG with classes able to use HP as source? These games usually have strong healers that can heal these characters but heal a character costs someone action (do you notice the similarity?) to heal and also increase the risk to char down (this time costing a ress).

So the fact of being able to use the HP as cost in the end will probably be paid as someone action and other resource later. So don't treat HP as a lesser power source or a thing with "no real consequences" it's the opposite it's a complex, manageable, and interesting resource.

Ability to recover in battle first and foremost, the closest Strain Mind from Psychic per example is once per hour.

And yes played a lot of games with HP as a resource... and now what most of those classes have in common? They usually don't want to be healed because of passives or an ability that makes them at their strongest at 1 HP and the abilities takes like 50% or 90% of their HP so they are actually in range to use the abilites that are actually worth using in the very low hp range. Dark Knight from Bravely Default, Hexer and Yggdroid from Etrian Odyssey and so on.

The original kineticist that made everyone want this class in the first place (if you went full on burn)...

There is this weird thing where people liked kineticist and wanted kineticist. But here we are in a playtest that lacks most of what made the kineticist fun and people are saying "the old kinetcist is bad". Really strange how such a "bad class" with "bad mechanics" is so loved and wanted, but oh no can't have the class be like it originally was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

The original kineticist that made everyone want this class in the first place (if you went full on burn)...

There is this weird thing where people liked kineticist and wanted kineticist. But here we are in a playtest that lacks most of what made the kineticist fun and people are saying "the old kinetcist is bad". Really strange how such a "bad class" with "bad mechanics" is so loved and wanted, but oh no can't have the class be like it originally was.

I think you have something wrong here: lots of people want a class like the kineticist but not the burn mechanic: for instance, some want a bender or a firestarter or... None of that requires/needs burn specifically. Others liked the PF1 class but hated/loathed the burn mechanic. Wanting a kineticist isn't the same as wanting burn. Nothing about wanting to toss around elements is innately tied to punching yourself in the face to power up.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Temperans wrote:

The original kineticist that made everyone want this class in the first place (if you went full on burn)...

There is this weird thing where people liked kineticist and wanted kineticist. But here we are in a playtest that lacks most of what made the kineticist fun and people are saying "the old kinetcist is bad". Really strange how such a "bad class" with "bad mechanics" is so loved and wanted, but oh no can't have the class be like it originally was.

I think you have something wrong here: lots of people want a class like the kineticist but not the burn mechanic: for instance, some want a bender or a firestarter or... None of that requires/needs burn specifically. Others liked the PF1 class but hated/loathed the burn mechanic. Wanting a kineticist isn't the same as wanting burn. Nothing about wanting to toss around elements is innately tied to punching yourself in the face to power up.

"Nothing about wanting to toss around elements is innately tied to punching yourself in the face to power up."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBZk6JZwJCU


Verzen wrote:
graystone wrote:
Temperans wrote:

The original kineticist that made everyone want this class in the first place (if you went full on burn)...

There is this weird thing where people liked kineticist and wanted kineticist. But here we are in a playtest that lacks most of what made the kineticist fun and people are saying "the old kinetcist is bad". Really strange how such a "bad class" with "bad mechanics" is so loved and wanted, but oh no can't have the class be like it originally was.

I think you have something wrong here: lots of people want a class like the kineticist but not the burn mechanic: for instance, some want a bender or a firestarter or... None of that requires/needs burn specifically. Others liked the PF1 class but hated/loathed the burn mechanic. Wanting a kineticist isn't the same as wanting burn. Nothing about wanting to toss around elements is innately tied to punching yourself in the face to power up.

"Nothing about wanting to toss around elements is innately tied to punching yourself in the face to power up."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBZk6JZwJCU

Burn


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that want's the people want from old PF1 Kineticist is a stronger blaster.

It's easily to notice when the most people say "What we need to have a stronger and with better action economy Kineticist? Do you need Burn? So just put Burn into it! We just want the Kineticist stronger as they are PF1".

No one really have love for Burn here. What most people wants is a solution.

Sczarni

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

I think that want's the people want from old PF1 Kineticist is a stronger blaster.

It's easily to notice when the most people say "What we need to have a stronger and with better action economy Kineticist? Do you need Burn? So just put Burn into it! We just want the Kineticist stronger as they are PF1".

No one really have love for Burn here. What most people wants is a solution.

..I love burn

My favorite rpg mechanic is hp for power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Verzen wrote:
YuriP wrote:

I think that want's the people want from old PF1 Kineticist is a stronger blaster.

It's easily to notice when the most people say "What we need to have a stronger and with better action economy Kineticist? Do you need Burn? So just put Burn into it! We just want the Kineticist stronger as they are PF1".

No one really have love for Burn here. What most people wants is a solution.

..I love burn

My favorite rpg mechanic is hp for power.

Sure there are SOME people that liked burn, but don't conflate people saying they liked the PF1 Kineticist with them saying they love PF2 burn. Myself I loved the class but could never play it for long because I just hated burn so much [and the no burn archetype was SO, SO bad].


graystone wrote:
Verzen wrote:
YuriP wrote:

I think that want's the people want from old PF1 Kineticist is a stronger blaster.

It's easily to notice when the most people say "What we need to have a stronger and with better action economy Kineticist? Do you need Burn? So just put Burn into it! We just want the Kineticist stronger as they are PF1".

No one really have love for Burn here. What most people wants is a solution.

..I love burn

My favorite rpg mechanic is hp for power.

Sure there are SOME people that liked burn, but don't conflate people saying they liked the PF1 Kineticist with them saying they love PF2 burn. Myself I loved the class but could never play it for long because I just hated burn so much [and the no burn archetype was SO, SO bad].

Congrats this class is the no burn archetype with none of the benefits of modularity the original had.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
graystone wrote:
Verzen wrote:
YuriP wrote:

I think that want's the people want from old PF1 Kineticist is a stronger blaster.

It's easily to notice when the most people say "What we need to have a stronger and with better action economy Kineticist? Do you need Burn? So just put Burn into it! We just want the Kineticist stronger as they are PF1".

No one really have love for Burn here. What most people wants is a solution.

..I love burn

My favorite rpg mechanic is hp for power.

Sure there are SOME people that liked burn, but don't conflate people saying they liked the PF1 Kineticist with them saying they love PF2 burn. Myself I loved the class but could never play it for long because I just hated burn so much [and the no burn archetype was SO, SO bad].
Congrats this class is the no burn archetype with none of the benefits of modularity the original had.

Perfection


guys, we've had burn sense the character guide. we don't need to reprint it


Temperans wrote:
Congrats this class is the no burn archetype with none of the benefits of modularity the original had.

Still better than the PF1 class with burn, so progress! Heck, I've played the PF1 commoner before and had more fun than with a PF1 Kineticist with burn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Verzen wrote:
YuriP wrote:

I think that want's the people want from old PF1 Kineticist is a stronger blaster.

It's easily to notice when the most people say "What we need to have a stronger and with better action economy Kineticist? Do you need Burn? So just put Burn into it! We just want the Kineticist stronger as they are PF1".

No one really have love for Burn here. What most people wants is a solution.

..I love burn

My favorite rpg mechanic is hp for power.

Sure there are SOME people that liked burn, but don't conflate people saying they liked the PF1 Kineticist with them saying they love PF2 burn. Myself I loved the class but could never play it for long because I just hated burn so much [and the no burn archetype was SO, SO bad].

That is typical Paizo design though We put out multiple options but there is always that one option that is significantly better than all the other options. And we get more added options that so horrible they are borderline non playable. I already see that with 2E. I see in Starfinder more than anything. And it is beyond annoying and then trying to GM with that is a huge turn off. Its like The Operative, all I see are ghost because it is still by far the best option.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rage of Elements Playtest / Kineticist Class / A simple proposal to bring back Burn All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.