Class Budget comparison with the Inventor.


Kineticist Class

51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Yup, I did mention that Inventor had a similar chassis as the Kineticist.

Also remember that if you use an unstable action, prevents the use of another one, like if you use it on megavolt you can't use it now on Searing Restoration, so for an Inventor that is a higher opportunity cost.


I'd like it if extract element was made more broad and useful. And function similar to inventor overdrive.

Basically let us use it on anything and call it transmute element.

Letting us get a damage bump off using it as opposed to gather element.

The amount I don't know, likely some form of con to damage.

Just a rough idea


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Guntermench wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

For the record, I compared the shortbow to the fire blast because both have 60 ft range increments and deal a d6. I think the community undervalues range increments, personally, but it is pretty clear by now that Paizo attaches a certain value to them which will always be factored into weapon choice. Earth and Water are more comparable to thrown weapons like Tridents, where the shorter range allows for higher damage. And wind takes it in the opposite direction, much to the chagrin of many people.

Edit: I'll note propulsive is not a huge contributer here. Most archer inventors need to max Dex and Int which only leaves one boost in Str until level 5. If anything, the deadly dice probably gives the shortbow more of an advantage here and is valued roughly equal to agile, at least in melee. The +1 damage from propulsive matters a lot less than Overdrive.

Propulsive is clearly valued the same as 10ft of range.

Not... Exactly. Range increments are relative values, not absolute. The difference between a 20 foot range and a 30 foot range is significant. The difference between 60 feet and 70 feet is less so.

I don't think the sling and the hand crossbow are quite comparable either, because most GMs seem to let you store a crossbow loaded but not a sling. Being able to draw and fire without the reload is really helpful, especially with light bulk weapons you could carry a several of.


The way to think of range increments I think is "how many actions does it take an opponent to get into melee range". Without difficult terrain around them, the Geokineticist hangs out in "one action to get into melee" range of basically everybody (that's why their difficult terrain aura is important.) Water hangs out between 1-2 strides for most things. Air *can* hang out at a range that can't be reached in a single turn spent doing nothing but moving, but might not be able to because the room isn't that big for example.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

For the record, I compared the shortbow to the fire blast because both have 60 ft range increments and deal a d6. I think the community undervalues range increments, personally, but it is pretty clear by now that Paizo attaches a certain value to them which will always be factored into weapon choice. Earth and Water are more comparable to thrown weapons like Tridents, where the shorter range allows for higher damage. And wind takes it in the opposite direction, much to the chagrin of many people.

Edit: I'll note propulsive is not a huge contributer here. Most archer inventors need to max Dex and Int which only leaves one boost in Str until level 5. If anything, the deadly dice probably gives the shortbow more of an advantage here and is valued roughly equal to agile, at least in melee. The +1 damage from propulsive matters a lot less than Overdrive.

Propulsive is clearly valued the same as 10ft of range.

Not... Exactly. Range increments are relative values, not absolute. The difference between a 20 foot range and a 30 foot range is significant. The difference between 60 feet and 70 feet is less so.

I don't think the sling and the hand crossbow are quite comparable either, because most GMs seem to let you store a crossbow loaded but not a sling. Being able to draw and fire without the reload is really helpful, especially with light bulk weapons you could carry a several of.

Hadn't heard of that with slings. That's still strictly a house rule though. Not that you could extrapolate that propulsive equals exactly 10 feet however. Its value is a little ambiguous and since bows were made over the curve on purpose, it's kind of awkward to fit it in. It's more valuable to a kineticist since they have brutal strikes to work with, otherwise it's more of a neutral trait than anything considering bows and the 10 foot difference on slings vs handcrossbows is negligible.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
aobst128 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

For the record, I compared the shortbow to the fire blast because both have 60 ft range increments and deal a d6. I think the community undervalues range increments, personally, but it is pretty clear by now that Paizo attaches a certain value to them which will always be factored into weapon choice. Earth and Water are more comparable to thrown weapons like Tridents, where the shorter range allows for higher damage. And wind takes it in the opposite direction, much to the chagrin of many people.

Edit: I'll note propulsive is not a huge contributer here. Most archer inventors need to max Dex and Int which only leaves one boost in Str until level 5. If anything, the deadly dice probably gives the shortbow more of an advantage here and is valued roughly equal to agile, at least in melee. The +1 damage from propulsive matters a lot less than Overdrive.

Propulsive is clearly valued the same as 10ft of range.

Not... Exactly. Range increments are relative values, not absolute. The difference between a 20 foot range and a 30 foot range is significant. The difference between 60 feet and 70 feet is less so.

I don't think the sling and the hand crossbow are quite comparable either, because most GMs seem to let you store a crossbow loaded but not a sling. Being able to draw and fire without the reload is really helpful, especially with light bulk weapons you could carry a several of.

Hadn't heard of that with slings. That's still strictly a house rule though.

I don't think it is a house rule so much as table variance. Pretty sure nothing specifies you can or can't stow a loaded weapon, but some people think a loaded crossbow feels more plausible than a rock staying in a loose sling.

I think we now have pretty obvious proof this is intended for hand crossbows thanks to Drow Shootist and Gunner's Bandolier and such, but nothing implies slings can be stowed loaded. (This may also be a balancing factor given they are free and deal a superior damage type.)


Captain Morgan wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Guntermench wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

For the record, I compared the shortbow to the fire blast because both have 60 ft range increments and deal a d6. I think the community undervalues range increments, personally, but it is pretty clear by now that Paizo attaches a certain value to them which will always be factored into weapon choice. Earth and Water are more comparable to thrown weapons like Tridents, where the shorter range allows for higher damage. And wind takes it in the opposite direction, much to the chagrin of many people.

Edit: I'll note propulsive is not a huge contributer here. Most archer inventors need to max Dex and Int which only leaves one boost in Str until level 5. If anything, the deadly dice probably gives the shortbow more of an advantage here and is valued roughly equal to agile, at least in melee. The +1 damage from propulsive matters a lot less than Overdrive.

Propulsive is clearly valued the same as 10ft of range.

Not... Exactly. Range increments are relative values, not absolute. The difference between a 20 foot range and a 30 foot range is significant. The difference between 60 feet and 70 feet is less so.

I don't think the sling and the hand crossbow are quite comparable either, because most GMs seem to let you store a crossbow loaded but not a sling. Being able to draw and fire without the reload is really helpful, especially with light bulk weapons you could carry a several of.

Hadn't heard of that with slings. That's still strictly a house rule though.

I don't think it is a house rule so much as table variance. Pretty sure nothing specifies you can or can't stow a loaded weapon, but some people think a loaded crossbow feels more plausible than a rock staying in a loose sling.

I think we now have pretty obvious proof this is intended for hand crossbows thanks to Drow Shootist and Gunner's Bandolier and such, but nothing implies slings can be stowed loaded. (This may...

Understood. Bludgeoning equals 10 feet of range obviously. ;)

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:

I'd like it if extract element was made more br@& oad and useful. And function similar to inventor overdrive.

Basically let us use it on anything and call it transmute element.

Letting us get a damage bump off using it as opposed to gather element.

The amount I don't know, likely some form of con to damage.

Just a rough idea

What if gather element worked exactly like Overdrive except crit success is con 1/2 (+6 damage eith 18 con). Success is equal to con. Fail is half con. This lasts until I throw it and effects all impulses. It simulates how well I did at gathering elements.

Further on top of that while gathered, depending on your success at gathering..

It could be 2/4/6 for every elemental ability.

Earth gains con in resistance to all physical damage

Fire gains con in damage to anyone who strikes them.

Water gains con in fast healing

Air gains con in circumstance bonus to AC against AoO and ranged attacks

Wood gains con in ????

Metal gains con in all saves.

Once I use the impulse, all those bonuses go away till I gather again.

For dual, it takes two of those and uses half con instead of con.

So it would be 1/2/3 for two different ones instead of 2/4/6.

This way gather elements really matters and I lose buffs if I want to use overflow abilities or keep the buffs if I want to to simply use my blasts to do martial attack. This would largely fix a lot of issues where it feels like reload rather than an actual stance you enter... and those bonuses aren't on all the time. They have to be "used up" as a resource.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

To those who might think this is powerful, we can make the DC like 15. That way 25% of time time it's a 4. 5% it's a 6. 50% it's a 2 and 20% nothing is gathered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Way too complex and I don't know if I like making it just investigator gimmick plus con. Doesn't feel great

Sczarni

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Way too complex and I don't know if I like making it just investigator gimmick plus con. Doesn't feel great

It's not complicated at all.

And it's inventor gimmick in a way.

If you're earth and roll a 13, you gain 2 DR+2dmg per impulse. You can sacrifice the DR + dmg bonus to deal an overflow ability that gains 2 damage to it.


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

I'd like it if extract element was made more br@& oad and useful. And function similar to inventor overdrive.

Basically let us use it on anything and call it transmute element.

Letting us get a damage bump off using it as opposed to gather element.

The amount I don't know, likely some form of con to damage.

Just a rough idea

What if gather element worked exactly like Overdrive except crit success is con 1/2 (+6 damage eith 18 con). Success is equal to con. Fail is half con. This lasts until I throw it and effects all impulses. It simulates how well I did at gathering elements.

Further on top of that while gathered, depending on your success at gathering..

It could be 2/4/6 for every elemental ability.

Earth gains con in resistance to all physical damage

Fire gains con in damage to anyone who strikes them.

Water gains con in fast healing

Air gains con in circumstance bonus to AC against AoO and ranged attacks

Wood gains con in ????

Metal gains con in all saves.

Once I use the impulse, all those bonuses go away till I gather again.

For dual, it takes two of those and uses half con instead of con.

So it would be 1/2/3 for two different ones instead of 2/4/6.

This way gather elements really matters and I lose buffs if I want to use overflow abilities or keep the buffs if I want to to simply use my blasts to do martial attack. This would largely fix a lot of issues where it feels like reload rather than an actual stance you enter... and those bonuses aren't on all the time. They have to be "used up" as a resource.

Blasts don’t make you lose your element, nor do any of the feats related to blasts. This would just make blast feats even better than overflow impulses, because any time you succeed, you would never want to expend your element. In addition to being complicated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not complicated and too complicated are not always the same thing. In context to game design. Edit: by this I mean, sure, the ability itself isn't too complex on it's own but it's being tacked onto an existing ability and you have to account everything else the class does.

It's important that classes can make sense to new players that done have decades of experience as well.

This class is already decently complex for a class in this edition. At that point I'd rather have us able to blast without gather and gather gives us half con to damage and just give overflow abilities full con to damage. Make it simple.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ahem.

Captain Morgan wrote:

People keep calling for these really drastic changes when if you just moved the needle ever so slightly, you're as good as any martial for single target damage.

Seriously, it isn't hard. Don't make it hard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yea a small damage increase (or a power attack for all gates) would satisfy the single target gremlin in me. The overflows I would just tune up slightly or reduce the number of actions. I don't think the class needs much


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It does seem like a die increase somewhere along the way might do the job. Sure, you would end up with some kinetic blasts being better ranged options than other classes get, but the reason you sign up to be the class of "someone who can throw boulders around all day" is that this sounds more effective at hurting people than a bow and arrows.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It does seem like a die increase somewhere along the way might do the job. Sure, you would end up with some kinetic blasts being better ranged options than other classes get, but the reason you sign up to be the class of "someone who can throw boulders around all day" is that this sounds more effective at hurting people than a bow and arrows.

The problem is that “shoots bows and arrows” is already as overturned as weapons can get in PF2. Michael Sayre laid out the math in one of the the “what is up with firearm design?” Threads and made it clear that the short bow is over it’s budget for weapon design and any character wanting simple ranged combat based around rate of fire is never going to do better than a bow.

It a high fantasy game and archery is that niche.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Eh. If the kinetic blasts wind up inherently better than ranged weapons, you'd need some restraints for multiclassing. IMO blasts should be at most equal to weapons, and the kineticist can have a boosting feature not available through multiclassing. Like how multiclass rangers can Hunt Prey but don't get Hunter's Edge.

That buff couldn't drive the kineticist's damage past an archer with a damage boosting class feature either way. You can't have kinetic blasts be mechanically superior to bows for the same reasons guns can't be. Bows are just too baked into the game's vibe.

WWHsmackdown wrote:
Yea a small damage increase (or a power attack for all gates) would satisfy the single target gremlin in me. The overflows I would just tune up slightly or reduce the number of actions. I don't think the class needs much

I'd rather they keep the actions the same and buff damage. Or even just buff scaling maybe. You basically need the three action Overflow if you want something comparable to a two action focus spell or unstable action. The current model doesn't let you spam the blasts every turn and forces you to mix up your action routines.

Reducing the action cost would require focus points or something instead, and I've got enough ways to do that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It does seem like a die increase somewhere along the way might do the job. Sure, you would end up with some kinetic blasts being better ranged options than other classes get, but the reason you sign up to be the class of "someone who can throw boulders around all day" is that this sounds more effective at hurting people than a bow and arrows.

The problem is that “shoots bows and arrows” is already as overturned as weapons can get in PF2. Michael Sayre laid out the math in one of the the “what is up with firearm design?” Threads and made it clear that the short bow is over it’s budget for weapon design and any character wanting simple ranged combat based around rate of fire is never going to do better than a bow.

It a high fantasy game and archery is that niche.

This seems like a cop out. If short bow is so over the top then they have two choices:

1) Nerf the bow to where its supposed to be and people will stop complaining that they don't do enough damage "cause look you can literally just use a regular bow".

2) Buff all the ranged weapons so that they are at the same level as the bow. Then people will stop complaining that they don't do enough damage "cause look you can literally just use a regular bow".

PF2 has had 2 years with no one complaining that the short bow is breaking their game. But everyone keeps complaining that ranged abilities don't do enough damage. We have had two years where they could had errata short bows to "fit the balance" but they don't seem interested in doing that, and people will complain if they do.

So tell me? If short bows are not an issue? If no one is complaining that short bow level damage is not overpowered? How the heck is a literal blast of magical energy by what is supposed to literally the best class at throwing magical energy not getting short bow level power?

Why should guns be underpowered when they admit that the short bow punches above its weight without throwing the balance out of wack?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The Elemental Blast should be allowed to be better than a shortbow because it is not a weapon and it doesn't compete with weapons, it's the whole reason you sign up for the class. If you're concerned about breaking stuff through multiclassing there's a lot of ways around that (for one "elemental blast" is not a strike, so it can't be used with flurry of blows, spellstrike, Attack of Opportunity, etc.)

If you're concerned about niche protection with the shortbow, you can make it less attractive to attack repeatedly in one turn. The Kineticist has a lot of 2 action activities they would happily combine with "one elemental blast."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Unicore wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It does seem like a die increase somewhere along the way might do the job. Sure, you would end up with some kinetic blasts being better ranged options than other classes get, but the reason you sign up to be the class of "someone who can throw boulders around all day" is that this sounds more effective at hurting people than a bow and arrows.

The problem is that “shoots bows and arrows” is already as overturned as weapons can get in PF2. Michael Sayre laid out the math in one of the the “what is up with firearm design?” Threads and made it clear that the short bow is over it’s budget for weapon design and any character wanting simple ranged combat based around rate of fire is never going to do better than a bow.

It a high fantasy game and archery is that niche.

This seems like a cop out. If short bow is so over the top then they have two choices:

1) Nerf the bow to where its supposed to be and people will stop complaining that they don't do enough damage "cause look you can literally just use a regular bow".

2) Buff all the ranged weapons so that they are at the same level as the bow. Then people will stop complaining that they don't do enough damage "cause look you can literally just use a regular bow".

PF2 has had 2 years with no one complaining that the short bow is breaking their game. But everyone keeps complaining that ranged abilities don't do enough damage. We have had two years where they could had errata short bows to "fit the balance" but they don't seem interested in doing that, and people will complain if they do.

So tell me? If short bows are not an issue? If no one is complaining that short bow level damage is not overpowered? How the heck is a literal blast of magical energy by what is supposed to literally the best class at throwing magical energy not getting short bow level power?

Why should guns be underpowered when they admit that the short bow punches above its weight without throwing the balance out...

I've been in games with several people that have complained that nothing else compares to bows, personally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
Unicore wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It does seem like a die increase somewhere along the way might do the job. Sure, you would end up with some kinetic blasts being better ranged options than other classes get, but the reason you sign up to be the class of "someone who can throw boulders around all day" is that this sounds more effective at hurting people than a bow and arrows.

The problem is that “shoots bows and arrows” is already as overturned as weapons can get in PF2. Michael Sayre laid out the math in one of the the “what is up with firearm design?” Threads and made it clear that the short bow is over it’s budget for weapon design and any character wanting simple ranged combat based around rate of fire is never going to do better than a bow.

It a high fantasy game and archery is that niche.

This seems like a cop out. If short bow is so over the top then they have two choices:

1) Nerf the bow to where its supposed to be and people will stop complaining that they don't do enough damage "cause look you can literally just use a regular bow".

2) Buff all the ranged weapons so that they are at the same level as the bow. Then people will stop complaining that they don't do enough damage "cause look you can literally just use a regular bow".

PF2 has had 2 years with no one complaining that the short bow is breaking their game. But everyone keeps complaining that ranged abilities don't do enough damage. We have had two years where they could had errata short bows to "fit the balance" but they don't seem interested in doing that, and people will complain if they do.

So tell me? If short bows are not an issue? If no one is complaining that short bow level damage is not overpowered? How the heck is a literal blast of magical energy by what is supposed to literally the best class at throwing magical energy not getting short bow level power?

Why should guns be underpowered when they admit that the short bow punches above its weight without throwing the balance out...

Because other ranged weapons, in the hands of specific classes, can out damage a short bow, doing the thing that that class is designed to do.

Earth blasts do out perform a short bow, even a composite shortbow. Especially since the Kineticist can fire it with strength for accuracy with just one feat. With Agile, Fire keeps up pretty well too and all of the blasts can out perform a generic character with a short bow by 4th level when they can equivalently make a fourth attack.

Yeah they are going to miss a lot. But they are also going to attack a lot, and their accuracy is good enough that they will still likely be able to crit on those 3rd and 4th attacks, which means that the class crits a fair bit for appearing to be low accuracy.

So it is not the case that "Short bow is the best weapon in the game."
It is the case that Short bow is the easiest weapon to use to consistently do as much damage as range characters are expected to be able to do, without having to do anything to set it up. They are the best "point and fire a lot" weapon.

Making every weapon fill that same spot in the game is impossible unless you basically just make all weapons exactly the same. Every other weapon sacrifices a little bit of "point and shoot a lot" power to do something else that might be better than pointing and shooting a lot, in a specific situation.

Kinetic Blasts do point and shoot a lot about as well as a short bow when you look at them as a whole, with a little situational variations that make some easier to see it on than others. Most martials that want to do ranged combat have some way of boosting what they can do with a short bow pretty quickly. Most of the comments about kineticists needing to do more damage are a push to give them a similar boost. One flat point of damage per damage die is pretty much already there in the best case scenarios for the Kineticists.

What I think is really getting to people that are frustrated with the blasty-ness of the Kineticist is that the gonzo damage boosters that they get to their blast attacks only trigger when there are 3 or more enemies to attack in a combat. That is the situation where their damage with blasts gets much better than even fighters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Unicore wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It does seem like a die increase somewhere along the way might do the job. Sure, you would end up with some kinetic blasts being better ranged options than other classes get, but the reason you sign up to be the class of "someone who can throw boulders around all day" is that this sounds more effective at hurting people than a bow and arrows.

The problem is that “shoots bows and arrows” is already as overturned as weapons can get in PF2. Michael Sayre laid out the math in one of the the “what is up with firearm design?” Threads and made it clear that the short bow is over it’s budget for weapon design and any character wanting simple ranged combat based around rate of fire is never going to do better than a bow.

It a high fantasy game and archery is that niche.

This seems like a cop out. If short bow is so over the top then they have two choices:

1) Nerf the bow to where its supposed to be and people will stop complaining that they don't do enough damage "cause look you can literally just use a regular bow".

2) Buff all the ranged weapons so that they are at the same level as the bow. Then people will stop complaining that they don't do enough damage "cause look you can literally just use a regular bow".

PF2 has had 2 years with no one complaining that the short bow is breaking their game. But everyone keeps complaining that ranged abilities don't do enough damage. We have had two years where they could had errata short bows to "fit the balance" but they don't seem interested in doing that, and people will complain if they do.

So tell me? If short bows are not an issue? If no one is complaining that short bow level damage is not overpowered? How the heck is a literal blast of magical energy by what is supposed to literally the best class at throwing magical energy not getting short bow level power?

Why should guns be underpowered when they admit that the short bow punches above its weight

...

I'm just not a fan of the kineticist feeling adequately blasty if I target 3 plus enemies. Id rather spend multiple actions to feel moderately blasty on one target.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would be cool if Blast Barrage had something for single target. Or there was a single target alternative at an earlier level than 10, preferably available to Dedicated.

Maybe add the attacks vs resistance or something. That's a fairly common thing already.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:


Eh. If the kinetic blasts wind up inherently better than ranged weapons, you'd need some restraints for multiclassing. IMO blasts should be at most equal to weapons, and the kineticist can have a boosting feature not available through multiclassing. Like how multiclass rangers can Hunt Prey but don't get Hunter's Edge

Don't gunslingers get a small amount of flat damage with guns?

In theory you could give Kineticist the same thing.

But that's kinda already Stoke Element.

My point is you could just buff Kineticist's blast use but not the blast.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Elemental Blast should be allowed to be better than a shortbow because it is not a weapon and it doesn't compete with weapons, it's the whole reason you sign up for the class. If you're concerned about breaking stuff through multiclassing there's a lot of ways around that (for one "elemental blast" is not a strike, so it can't be used with flurry of blows, spellstrike, Attack of Opportunity, etc.)

If you're concerned about niche protection with the shortbow, you can make it less attractive to attack repeatedly in one turn. The Kineticist has a lot of 2 action activities they would happily combine with "one elemental blast."

Being good with a bow is the whole reason someone signs up to play a martial with a bow. The weapon choice is every bit a part of the class focus for a fighter or a weapon innovater. And the fighter, in particular, doesn't get to do a much of anything else. They just get to be good at killing things with a bow. The kineticist is almost certainly going to be more than that. There's no world where they dealing more consistent, sustainable damage than a fighter.

You could make blasts two actions, I doubt people would be happy with that based on how many write off reloading. I think some people might be hoping for a reflex save single target blast instead of targeting AC, but that's probably a bad idea. You'd wind up very feast or famine depending on whether you're targeting a high or low reflex monster and then you don't get an alternative defense to target like a caster would.

The blasts need a buff, but they will never consistently outdamage martials. The best you can hope for is that they are equal, and even then you'll probably wind up a little less because your class gets other powers.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
cheezeofjustice wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


Eh. If the kinetic blasts wind up inherently better than ranged weapons, you'd need some restraints for multiclassing. IMO blasts should be at most equal to weapons, and the kineticist can have a boosting feature not available through multiclassing. Like how multiclass rangers can Hunt Prey but don't get Hunter's Edge

Don't gunslingers get a small amount of flat damage with guns?

In theory you could give Kineticist the same thing.

But that's kinda already Stoke Element.

My point is you could just buff Kineticist's blast use but not the blast.

Sure, that is more or less what I've been suggesting. Just give them a little flat damage.


If the data shows that Stoke is an overwhelmingly popular choice, that is the kind of thing that might be worked into the class chassis.


A small booster will go a long way. Or more consistent support for blasting. The thing about inventors and thaumaturges is that they don't get better with specific weapon types, they have boosters that make them generally better rather than specifically better like fighters specializing in bows or dual wielding or whatever. The kineticist is in a good position to be specifically better with blasting that isn't just a damage boost. Better feats and maybe a core feature to boost efficiency with blasts could also go a long way to making blasts better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I strongly disagree with the premise that "both are once per fight".

Having played an Inventor for up to mid levels, having to make the choice "do I do my single blast OR do I keep my single heal" is world's apart from simply spending an action to get it back.

I can tell you 100% that if I had the option to spend 1 action to repeat my Unstable actions I would have used it all the time.

So really, the difference is:
One class has a single ability per fight but a damage boost on strikes.
Other class can do multiple abilities per fight but no damage boost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:
If the data shows that Stoke is an overwhelmingly popular choice, that is the kind of thing that might be worked into the class chassis.

I don't think that Stoke is popular for a good reason. It's more like "the only good option to use once the Overflow are just meh".


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

I strongly disagree with the premise that "both are once per fight".

Having played an Inventor for up to mid levels, having to make the choice "do I do my single blast OR do I keep my single heal" is world's apart from simply spending an action to get it back.

I can tell you 100% that if I had the option to spend 1 action to repeat my Unstable actions I would have used it all the time.

So really, the difference is:
One class has a single ability per fight but a damage boost on strikes.
Other class can do multiple abilities per fight but no damage boost.

Right, but that is why the action cost of overflows is so high. A 2+1 action unstable would not only be stronger than a 3+1, but would lead to reptitive turns. For both classes you want to pick the moment to use your big boom because you can't just do it again next round.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
What I think is really getting to people that are frustrated with the blasty-ness of the Kineticist is that the gonzo damage boosters that they get to their blast attacks only trigger when there are 3 or more enemies to attack in a combat. That is the situation where their damage with blasts gets much better than even fighters.

I think you're forgetting a very important principle of d20 games, or heck, any game with HP and that doesn't have a death spiral mechanic: HP only does something when it goes to 0. Doing 20 damage to 3 targets is absolutely not the same value as doing 60 damage to 1 target. Yes, there's an edge case or two where splitting damage can be good, but simply summing up the damage you're doing to multiple targets in a 1-1 ratio and saying "haha, you're outdamaging a Fighter" is just... wrong. While you're tickling 4 different people, the Fighter already took an enemy out of the fight, which means less actions taken and less damage done by the other side.

I'm not saying AoE is worthless, but for multitargeting to be good, you need to do a lot better than "I do 130% of the damage I would normally do, but it's split between 3 targets".


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

I strongly disagree with the premise that "both are once per fight".

Having played an Inventor for up to mid levels, having to make the choice "do I do my single blast OR do I keep my single heal" is world's apart from simply spending an action to get it back.

I can tell you 100% that if I had the option to spend 1 action to repeat my Unstable actions I would have used it all the time.

So really, the difference is:
One class has a single ability per fight but a damage boost on strikes.
Other class can do multiple abilities per fight but no damage boost.

Right, but that is why the action cost of overflows is so high. A 2+1 action unstable would not only be stronger than a 3+1, but would lead to reptitive turns. For both classes you want to pick the moment to use your big boom because you can't just do it again next round.

Not doing all the time due to action economy is vastly different from "can't do it at all".

There is an action cost tax, yes, but that's not comparable at all to a hard stop.

Especially if the hard stop is sharing the cooldown between damage and healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
shroudb wrote:

I strongly disagree with the premise that "both are once per fight".

Having played an Inventor for up to mid levels, having to make the choice "do I do my single blast OR do I keep my single heal" is world's apart from simply spending an action to get it back.

I can tell you 100% that if I had the option to spend 1 action to repeat my Unstable actions I would have used it all the time.

So really, the difference is:
One class has a single ability per fight but a damage boost on strikes.
Other class can do multiple abilities per fight but no damage boost.

Right, but that is why the action cost of overflows is so high. A 2+1 action unstable would not only be stronger than a 3+1, but would lead to reptitive turns. For both classes you want to pick the moment to use your big boom because you can't just do it again next round.

Not doing all the time due to action economy is vastly different from "can't do it at all".

There is an action cost tax, yes, but that's not comparable at all to a hard stop.

Especially if the hard stop is sharing the cooldown between damage and healing.

Thank you for providing some much needed clarity on the comparison.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
dmerceless wrote:
Unicore wrote:
What I think is really getting to people that are frustrated with the blasty-ness of the Kineticist is that the gonzo damage boosters that they get to their blast attacks only trigger when there are 3 or more enemies to attack in a combat. That is the situation where their damage with blasts gets much better than even fighters.

I think you're forgetting a very important principle of d20 games, or heck, any game with HP and that doesn't have a death spiral mechanic: HP only does something when it goes to 0. Doing 20 damage to 3 targets is absolutely not the same value as doing 60 damage to 1 target. Yes, there's an edge case or two where splitting damage can be good, but simply summing up the damage you're doing to multiple targets in a 1-1 ratio and saying "haha, you're outdamaging a Fighter" is just... wrong. While you're tickling 4 different people, the Fighter already took an enemy out of the fight, which means less actions taken and less damage done by the other side.

I'm not saying AoE is worthless, but for multitargeting to be good, you need to do a lot better than "I do 130% of the damage I would normally do, but it's split between 3 targets".

I promise, I have not forgotten that many players feel like focus fire is the one true way to play pathfinder and any class that isn't good at doing lots of damage to one target is not a class worth existing. In fact, I am not arguing that being able to do lots of damage to lots of targets is how the Kineticist class should have been designed.

I am saying it is how the playtest was designed, and it is actually quite good at it. By higher levels, the Kineticist is doing absurd amounts of damage when they are fighting multiple targets, much better than 130% of their single target damage. Chain blast is a better multi-target feat than a barbarians whirlwind strike and it only takes two actions. If stoke element works the way it seems like it should, then using it on an attack like that would totally be worth one action the round previously. If that is not how stoke element is intended to work, then the damage potential on chain blast is a little less over the top (so maybe why it doesn't work with it?), but it is still amazing to make 5 attacks with no attack penalty. Combine that with a rune like shock and every crit piles on the multi-attack damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
Unicore wrote:
What I think is really getting to people that are frustrated with the blasty-ness of the Kineticist is that the gonzo damage boosters that they get to their blast attacks only trigger when there are 3 or more enemies to attack in a combat. That is the situation where their damage with blasts gets much better than even fighters.

I think you're forgetting a very important principle of d20 games, or heck, any game with HP and that doesn't have a death spiral mechanic: HP only does something when it goes to 0. Doing 20 damage to 3 targets is absolutely not the same value as doing 60 damage to 1 target. Yes, there's an edge case or two where splitting damage can be good, but simply summing up the damage you're doing to multiple targets in a 1-1 ratio and saying "haha, you're outdamaging a Fighter" is just... wrong. While you're tickling 4 different people, the Fighter already took an enemy out of the fight, which means less actions taken and less damage done by the other side.

I'm not saying AoE is worthless, but for multitargeting to be good, you need to do a lot better than "I do 130% of the damage I would normally do, but it's split between 3 targets".

I promise, I have not forgotten that many players feel like focus fire is the one true way to play pathfinder and any class that isn't good at doing lots of damage to one target is not a class worth existing. In fact, I am not arguing that being able to do lots of damage to lots of targets is how the Kineticist class should have been designed.

I am saying it is how the playtest was designed, and it is actually quite good at it. By higher levels, the Kineticist is doing absurd amounts of damage when they are fighting multiple targets, much better than 130% of their single target damage. Chain blast is a better multi-target feat than a barbarians whirlwind strike and it only takes two actions. If stoke element works the way it seems like it should, then using it on an attack like that would...

While chain blast is amazing, it is kinda misinformation to say that it's "5 attacks".

A single missed attack breaks the chain, so if the 1st one miss, which is actually quite possible in a lot of encounters, it's basically 2 actions for 1 attack.

I would be interested in an actual "average amount of attacks" vs something like "vs equal level, vs level -1, vs level +1"

But eyeballing it, it should average like 2, or 2.3 or something attacks per 2 actions, rather than "5".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think chain blast is the outlier because you can reliably hit lots of targets with it, which is not really a thing about your AoE impulses until you get to the higher level ones (it's hard to catch 2, let alone 3 targets in a 5' burst or a line of any length).


dmerceless wrote:
Unicore wrote:
What I think is really getting to people that are frustrated with the blasty-ness of the Kineticist is that the gonzo damage boosters that they get to their blast attacks only trigger when there are 3 or more enemies to attack in a combat. That is the situation where their damage with blasts gets much better than even fighters.

I think you're forgetting a very important principle of d20 games, or heck, any game with HP and that doesn't have a death spiral mechanic: HP only does something when it goes to 0. Doing 20 damage to 3 targets is absolutely not the same value as doing 60 damage to 1 target. Yes, there's an edge case or two where splitting damage can be good, but simply summing up the damage you're doing to multiple targets in a 1-1 ratio and saying "haha, you're outdamaging a Fighter" is just... wrong. While you're tickling 4 different people, the Fighter already took an enemy out of the fight, which means less actions taken and less damage done by the other side.

I'm not saying AoE is worthless, but for multitargeting to be good, you need to do a lot better than "I do 130% of the damage I would normally do, but it's split between 3 targets".

You're forgetting that an AOE can take out multiple targets while setting up other targets to be killable by another party member. If there are many small enemies or if a larger enemy was left with just a little bit of health or if you did enough damage to the boss to let the fighter kill it next, then that does a lot to help the fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
shroudb wrote:

I strongly disagree with the premise that "both are once per fight".

Having played an Inventor for up to mid levels, having to make the choice "do I do my single blast OR do I keep my single heal" is world's apart from simply spending an action to get it back.

I can tell you 100% that if I had the option to spend 1 action to repeat my Unstable actions I would have used it all the time.

So really, the difference is:
One class has a single ability per fight but a damage boost on strikes.
Other class can do multiple abilities per fight but no damage boost.

Right, but that is why the action cost of overflows is so high. A 2+1 action unstable would not only be stronger than a 3+1, but would lead to reptitive turns. For both classes you want to pick the moment to use your big boom because you can't just do it again next round.

Not doing all the time due to action economy is vastly different from "can't do it at all".

There is an action cost tax, yes, but that's not comparable at all to a hard stop.

Especially if the hard stop is sharing the cooldown between damage and healing.

Yeah pretty much, if you use ubstable on Searing Restoration, you can't use on megavolt later, if you use on megavolt can't use on explosive leap and so on.

Limits even how players will select the feats as you don't want too many unstable to compete with one another for your single unstable use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kripdenn wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
Unicore wrote:
What I think is really getting to people that are frustrated with the blasty-ness of the Kineticist is that the gonzo damage boosters that they get to their blast attacks only trigger when there are 3 or more enemies to attack in a combat. That is the situation where their damage with blasts gets much better than even fighters.

I think you're forgetting a very important principle of d20 games, or heck, any game with HP and that doesn't have a death spiral mechanic: HP only does something when it goes to 0. Doing 20 damage to 3 targets is absolutely not the same value as doing 60 damage to 1 target. Yes, there's an edge case or two where splitting damage can be good, but simply summing up the damage you're doing to multiple targets in a 1-1 ratio and saying "haha, you're outdamaging a Fighter" is just... wrong. While you're tickling 4 different people, the Fighter already took an enemy out of the fight, which means less actions taken and less damage done by the other side.

I'm not saying AoE is worthless, but for multitargeting to be good, you need to do a lot better than "I do 130% of the damage I would normally do, but it's split between 3 targets".

You're forgetting that an AOE can take out multiple targets while setting up other targets to be killable by another party member. If there are many small enemies or if a larger enemy was left with just a little bit of health or if you did enough damage to the boss to let the fighter kill it next, then that does a lot to help the fight.

If there are many small fries either the GM dismisses the fight because "its just a waste of time to actually run through it" or they make it into a troup and all those AoE abilities are useless.

Even if its just a group of 4 enemies, AoE is basically "hope that the GM is nice enough to place them all within 5-ft of each for you" or "I am going to deal more damage to our alies than the enemy ever did". Which both suck as the player who wants to shoot a bunch of elemetal magic. Even more when you lack the damage and special abilities to make single target good.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kripdenn wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
Unicore wrote:
What I think is really getting to people that are frustrated with the blasty-ness of the Kineticist is that the gonzo damage boosters that they get to their blast attacks only trigger when there are 3 or more enemies to attack in a combat. That is the situation where their damage with blasts gets much better than even fighters.

I think you're forgetting a very important principle of d20 games, or heck, any game with HP and that doesn't have a death spiral mechanic: HP only does something when it goes to 0. Doing 20 damage to 3 targets is absolutely not the same value as doing 60 damage to 1 target. Yes, there's an edge case or two where splitting damage can be good, but simply summing up the damage you're doing to multiple targets in a 1-1 ratio and saying "haha, you're outdamaging a Fighter" is just... wrong. While you're tickling 4 different people, the Fighter already took an enemy out of the fight, which means less actions taken and less damage done by the other side.

I'm not saying AoE is worthless, but for multitargeting to be good, you need to do a lot better than "I do 130% of the damage I would normally do, but it's split between 3 targets".

You're forgetting that an AOE can take out multiple targets while setting up other targets to be killable by another party member. If there are many small enemies or if a larger enemy was left with just a little bit of health or if you did enough damage to the boss to let the fighter kill it next, then that does a lot to help the fight.

Yes, in corner cases made just so this looks good, where you somehow know the enemy's HP, it will look good. In general play, according to many people's experiences, it's not common or good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's also easy to dismiss half damage on a fail. That is a pretty big boost to for, even if it isn't flashy or doesn't feel great to only do half damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:
It's also easy to dismiss half damage on a fail. That is a pretty big boost to for, even if it isn't flashy or doesn't feel great to only do half damage.

While this is true, Unicore's comment was about Blast Barrage and Chain Blast — options to make Strikes, but split between multiple targets. Those don't even have this advantage.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:
It's also easy to dismiss half damage on a fail. That is a pretty big boost to for, even if it isn't flashy or doesn't feel great to only do half damage.

It's easy because the damage on a success isn't enough for a lot of people to consider it worth using, half of that isn't even worth mentioning.


Half of nothing is still nothing.

Half of almost nothing is still almost nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The thing about "the Kineticist is about 2-4 damage low" sounds right to me since one of the strange things about the class is that almost everybody else gets to add a stat in some capacity to damage or gets some sort of damage bonus to their attacks (since they're weapons that usually add str or half strength to damage) or something that adds static damage (inventor's Overdrive; precision damage for Rangers, Swashbucklers, Investigators, etc.; even the Gunslinger's +1 combined with getting the most out of weapon spec.)

If you were to add a static modifier to kinetic blasts, you'd probably run into a problem with earth blasts being overtuned since they also get propulsive. But if you just added Con to blast damage (like cantrips) and replaced propulsive on Earth blasts with something else that's useful, I think that would work.

Yeah. I'd like the bonus to have some scaling to it (Overdrive has some extra base damage on top of int mod, for example), in particular to help air blasts (honestly, I'd like to just give up agile or something on these to make them d6 anyways - agile doesn't do a ton if you're doing strike>overflow then gather move strike on alternating rounds and such)

The other issue is that the scaling of blasting effects (and base damage, depending on which one) is pretty bad. It should also be noted that Megavolt can still be used as a long range cantrip for 10d4 as much as you like (and Gigavolt is silly) and Inventor does get the option to spend a class feat at 14 to guarantee a second use (and still has the chance to have more uses, even if it's only 20%).

The high end of reusable blasting in combat is probably Dragon Breath, since at level 20 a Draconic/Wyrmblessed Sorcerer can throw that out three times every fight (assuming time for refocus) for 19d6 (iirc - 5d6, +2d6 per level). Technically, overflows can be used more each fight. As a practical concern, how many fights have a call for AoE blasting still after three of those go off? And they fire off faster than overflows can because they're fewer actions. Once you get to more mopping up remaining mooks/fighting a boss, the value of AoE spells is much lower, likely for those AoE impulses.

The value of overflow impulses being reusable endlessly decreases over time basically I think, as at higher levels a lot of classes start getting to use big flashy things more often per fight, and martials start getting some freely reusable AoE at 16 or 18 (Weapon Inventor for instance gets a 30' whirlwind attack at 18, Monk can get stuff as early as 14... not even counting Ki Blast at 6, etc)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:


If there are many small fries either the GM dismisses the fight because "its just a waste of time to actually run through it" or they make it into a troup and all those AoE abilities are useless.

Even if its just a group of 4 enemies, AoE is basically "hope that the GM is nice enough to place them all within 5-ft of each for you" or "I am going to deal more damage to our alies than the enemy ever did". Which both suck as the...

If the GM is putting a situation with a lot of enemies in front of the players and then hand waving it away or actively deciding to do something that would nerf someone on the team that's bad GMing and not a problem with the system.

And it isn't hard to position for AoEs, the Kineticist has options for multi-target that doesn't hit allies, and more often than not if you do position for good AoEing the positions stay the way they are for the bulk of the 2-4 turn average fight and some of the longer ones.


Angel Hunter D wrote:
kripdenn wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
Unicore wrote:
What I think is really getting to people that are frustrated with the blasty-ness of the Kineticist is that the gonzo damage boosters that they get to their blast attacks only trigger when there are 3 or more enemies to attack in a combat. That is the situation where their damage with blasts gets much better than even fighters.

I think you're forgetting a very important principle of d20 games, or heck, any game with HP and that doesn't have a death spiral mechanic: HP only does something when it goes to 0. Doing 20 damage to 3 targets is absolutely not the same value as doing 60 damage to 1 target. Yes, there's an edge case or two where splitting damage can be good, but simply summing up the damage you're doing to multiple targets in a 1-1 ratio and saying "haha, you're outdamaging a Fighter" is just... wrong. While you're tickling 4 different people, the Fighter already took an enemy out of the fight, which means less actions taken and less damage done by the other side.

I'm not saying AoE is worthless, but for multitargeting to be good, you need to do a lot better than "I do 130% of the damage I would normally do, but it's split between 3 targets".

You're forgetting that an AOE can take out multiple targets while setting up other targets to be killable by another party member. If there are many small enemies or if a larger enemy was left with just a little bit of health or if you did enough damage to the boss to let the fighter kill it next, then that does a lot to help the fight.
Yes, in corner cases made just so this looks good, where you somehow know the enemy's HP, it will look good. In general play, according to many people's experiences, it's not common or good.

Pretty much any DM should tell you if an enemy looks unscathed, hurt, hurt badly, or near death. Bringing an enemy within kill range, finishing off a weakened enemy, and killing off minions are not corner cases. Those things happen all the time in any strategy game. That's an unbelievable thing to say.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hrrrm, I'm seeing a lot of 'Chain Blast is good/amazing' going around, but I really don't think it is. I haven't done a rigorous analysis yet, but a quick look does not leave me impressed. On the one hand multiple MAPless attacks is great, but on the other hand any miss ending the chain is rough.

Its only going to be used vs multiple lower level enemies, so that helps, but even if the hit chance is all the way up to 75%, that means you only get to the 3rd attack 56% of the time.

51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rage of Elements Playtest / Kineticist Class / Class Budget comparison with the Inventor. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.