| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, so many people seem to want the blastiest blasters to ever blast, why not just let, fighters, monks and rogues get access to the 2 action gather element from the environment and elemental blast?
No bonus feats, no gate exploits (so only one type of blast), and having to wait to pick up feats like flexible blast or barrage blast. Keep them weird hybrid unarmed attacks that are not weapons so they don’t stack with obvious weapon feats (those should require elemental weapons). Overflows will be too punishing to use and class DC will stay terrible/require feats to get to expert (also potentially limiting crit effects).
Why does single target blaster need to be its own full class and not just an archetype? Who cares if a fighter can Archetype in to kineticist or a unique general archetype and be a very accurate blaster, but struggle to do anything else with the class.
Won’t this solve the “I just want a good blaster” problem, but still allow the kineticist to be the master of battlefield control, get access to the more fun/expansive feats, and just be a little behind in accuracy, but with flexible feats and all that stuff, as well as gate restricted feats, which could include class damage boosters (like it does now).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the problem is less "fighters can grab blasts and hit well with them" and more "The Kineticist getting better at blasting hinges less on a Kineticist's increasing mastery of their element and more on 'buying better handwraps'." Which has the effect of making a kinetic blast just feel like a special kind of weapon, which it probably shouldn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with most of what you're saying here (and recognize that a lot of it is built up frustration), but to answer your final paragraph, no. Being able to perform one trick is not the gameplay fantasy. Being able to be a competent magical blaster, with several effects that all do a high amount of damage and a small amount of utility, is.
There's a lot of people that played mage characters in video games (the most obvious of course being Mages in world of warcraft), or played warlocks in any edition they've appeared in, or played almost any class in 4e, that want to see that kind of character in PF2. It doesn't have to be the kineticist, but because kineticists are also "all day casters" which form part of that gameplay style, it is somewhat understandable that people would look for it there.
All that said, for myself, I'm fine with kineticists staying as they are and fighters being able to cheese out a way to be more accurate with blasts. But if we don't get a single target suite of feats, something along the lines of how you can take 6 or 7 feats to get pretty good at bombing with an alchemist, then I would want to see another class take up that mantle. Could be Ninjas, could be something entirely new, the point would be to enable that fantasy.
Edit: Or, failing an entirely new class, it occurs to me that a class archetype on the Gunslinger which allows it to use blasts as if they were firearms might work (and making gather element a reload action). I'd have to take a closer look at gunslinger feats, as this is a wild thought, but the mental image of misfires on your gathered element actually helps sell the fantasy to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The Kineticist getting better at blasting hinges less on a Kineticist's increasing mastery of their element and more on 'buying better handwraps'."
I mean, that's just a description of being a martial in PF2. You're entirely dependent on magic to make your attacks relevant as your level goes up. Replace Kineticist with Barbarian or Monk in that sentence and it holds up (albeit element takes on a more metaphorical meaning but that's splitting hairs).
It sucks but that's just the game Paizo wanted.
I get the need to tie the Kineticist to the monetary treadmill (the PF1 was not, in a way that caused problems) but I think for the same reason that Striking Runes were reduced down to 3 extra dice (from 5) and every class got Weapon Specialization, the Kineticist needs this sort of thing but moreso.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like a blasty kineticist over a blasty fighter
I think if people want a single target damage specialist at the cost of all else, tying it a fighter with an archetype seems fine. But there are two balance problems there.
1. The blasts will know feel directly comparable to bows, and may come out behind.
2. The fighter could still pick up much of the utility through feats, albeit at a reduced rate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if people want a single target damage specialist at the cost of all else, tying it a fighter with an archetype seems fine. But there are two balance problems there.
1. The blasts will know feel directly comparable to bows, and may come out behind.
2. The fighter could still pick up much of the utility through feats, albeit at a reduced rate.
I would hope the blasts do come out behind bows. Blasts can be used in melee and be made to work of Strength. Also bows are overturned in PF2 and need to remain the undesputed top of the “fire a lot and do the most damage” category or PF2 is off to the power inflation races.
If they remain “not weapons” alone they will never fully equal what martials can do with bows, which feels about right.
I think the fighter version getting the utility options at 2x the level of the kineticist is probably not going to break things. Maybe their level should count as half as well for the heightened effects so the utility feats are never quite as good or as useable for the whole party?
The aura stuff is a bit risky since a fighter could certainly benefit from almost any of them, but I think that will be true of the kineticist archetype no matter how things shake out.
I'd like a blasty kineticist over a blasty fighter
If the goal of having a track within the kineticist is to have a character who can singularly focus all of their power, their feats, and abilities around being good at blasting, when the Kineticist class itself seems designed around creating a character who manipulates the elements in many different ways to control the battlefield (and the world beyond combat), support allies, and also be able to do some blasting in combat, why not have the class designed around singular focus on maximizing their ability to use one specific weapon as lethally as possible (including unarmed strikes and the self as a weapon), be the class that can best do that with blasts as well?
This is the big advantage of blasts being a martial ability and not a spell in my opinion. They become a tool of the game and not the only signature "thing" of the Kineticist. Instead of having to have new feats or powers to add all the different kinds of property rune effects to the blasts as spells, they can be modified with runes to get all of that flexibility and different damage types. It would be awesome if Rage of Elements includes some level 4-5 property runes that do things like cause an attack to do 1 point of a specific element damage, and possibly have a crit rider that requires you to have the critical specialization of your class to use.
I think the idea that the Kineticist has to be the best at blasts in order for a character to be martially dedicated to using blasts as the entire focus of their character is going to incredibly limit what else the class can do, and feels very unnecessary since we already have that class designed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. If you look at some of the infusions from 1e and some of the stuff Legendary Kineticist does, it's clear that there is potential for the class to, yes, be primarily a damage dealer with blasts, but in ways that are way deeper, more unique and more customizable than just slapping a blast onto a Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea that the Kineticist has to be the best at blasts in order for a character to be martially dedicated to using blasts as the entire focus of their character is going to incredibly limit what else the class can do, and feels very unnecessary since we already have that class designed.
Except that the designers wrote blasts to explicitly exclude them from the fighters proficiency bump and feats to the extent that they could. If we assume the rest of the design is intentional and will continue, why not that?
I also don’t see how having a feat “Chain” like the alchemist bomber feats really takes away from the core gameplay. We’re talking like 5 feats, all of which would also help with solo bosses (which you also acknowledge is something to be addressed). As I said before, I don’t think the core of the classes balancing should be shifted towards STB, but some feats (and rebalancing of blasts to get bigger baseline die) would be enough to at least placate people and provide a baseline for later classes or archetypes.
Edit: and no the psychic does not do that, as they have slots. That’s The killer for every other similar option.
Further edit: something I said in the beginning but is relevant again, that so many feats and abilities are multi effect actions might not necessarily mean they don’t plan simpler effect actions for the final version. Those ones are closer to existing focus spells and martial feats, so no real need to playtest those. Especially if what you really want to focus attention on is those multi effect, terrain, and AOE playstyles.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really dislike the alchemist bomb feat chains. Math fixers for damage like Calculated Splash are the least interesting options and basically feel like feat taxes. I feel the same way about Agonizing Blast in 5e.
If they want to make feats to enhance single target attacking, I'd prefer they build the damage enhancers into the class features and follow the fighter model instead of alchemist: give new actions and riders instead of raw numbers.
I disagree. If you look at some of the infusions from 1e and some of the stuff Legendary Kineticist does, it's clear that there is potential for the class to, yes, be primarily a damage dealer with blasts, but in ways that are way deeper, more unique and more customizable than just slapping a blast onto a Fighter.
Eh. I'm pretty hesitant to point to 1e for anything for how much room there is when you factor in balance.
That said.... fighter actually has a fair bit of customization for rider options already. Things like Blast Barrage are already basically just enhanced Double Shots and Triple shots. But you also have things like Assisting Shot and Debilitating Shot like the sort of effects you'd want from infusions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really dislike the alchemist bomb feat chains. Math fixers for damage like Calculated Splash are the least interesting options and basically feel like feat taxes. I feel the same way about Agonizing Blast in 5e.
If they want to make feats to enhance single target attacking, I'd prefer they build the damage enhancers into the class features and follow the fighter model instead of alchemist: give new actions and riders instead of raw numbers.
I meant that there exists a clear set of feats to take if you want to focus on bomb damage, and enough of them that you can spend most of your feats doing that, not necessarily the implementation of those feats.
I agree that more actions would be the way to go, not math fixers. I'm thinking something along the lines of Fire Ray as an overload feat (though applicable to all elements).
Blasts being weapon like, and modifiable by runes gives them more flexibility than will ever be accomplishable through anything like infusions or metamagic.
Want blasts of earth that crackle with electricity or fire? Just put an elemental property rune on it.
Want blasts that hit so hard they cause you to question your dedication to the battle, you can do that.
Plus, all future development of runes, like will come out in the treasure vault, will add more to what the Kineticist can do without having to be silo'd into Kineticist only material.
It is possible for the Rage of Elements book to spend some time talking about how handwraps empower Kineticists' ability to manipulate elements into forms that work like weapons and for that narrative to feel very natural to Golarion.
If there was a generalist blaster archetype instead of just the Kineticist MC, it could even offer feats that give free runes the character so that they don't have to buy them. It could also silo the blaster away from some of the broader utility of the Kineticist/ bypass the kineticist class DC entirely.
I can sympathize with wanting to be able to blast right at level one. There are many different ways that that could be handled by the developers, so I won't try to speculate on the best one, but I think the fact that "I could just be a better rapid-fire, single-target, ranged striker by being a fighter or a ranger with a bow" is going to be an "always truism" of second edition.
I had a whole post partially written where I was saying I didn’t think anyone in this thread wanted blasts to be as good as composite bows, let alone better, but, uh, never mind. I was clearly incorrect.
If there was a generalist blaster archetype instead of just the Kineticist MC, it could even offer feats that give free runes the character so that they don't have to buy them. It could also silo the blaster away from some of the broader utility of the Kineticist/ bypass the kineticist class DC entirely.
As the kids say, why not both? You could give the archetype access to the 4-7 feats I’m requesting, and add a few more on top of that if you REALLY want to blast something to the moon.
1: Greater Gather; stance feat giving you the ability to take an action to gather your element in your free hand to increase the damage of your blasts by 2 steps. If you use any other impulse besides blast, you drop out. You can also drop out willingly as a free action. Requires dedicated gate.
Balance wise, this is Changing Your Grip.
2: Grazing: Press Action. Let’s you do non-dice damage on a miss (but not critical miss) to your target.
3. Elemental Annihilation: pretty basic 2d12 + 1d12/2 levels for 2 actions. Basic save. Overload.
4: A basic AOE effect. Burst maybe, though slapping the scatter 20 trait (superseding the normal range) amuses me.
Maybe 1 more single target effect per element? I kind of like the ones we have, especially Flinging Updraft.
I don't understand why "Diadem = good" but "Handwraps = bad." How are natural attacks like Kitsune foxfire different enough from what blasts are not to just have one item that is about empowering the natural power and strength of attacks that you harness from within yourself?
Why make more different items that won't benefit from existing ones and the expansion of them?
I think there are many different voices being echoed in this playtest, and it is easy to feel like someone else who wants something different than what was presented in the playtest is upset for the same reasons you are.
There have been a whole spectrum of complaints about why blasts are not good enough, and I am willing to bet that a slight damage boost to them is going to be enough for many of those voices to be assuaged. But definitely not all of them, and no one of our opinions about what we want the Kineticist to look like in the end are really any more important than another's.
As far as the bow thing. It has been directly stated to us by the developers that the Shortbow was the easiest, most reliable way to do the most damage at range with lots of shots that the game is going to have. Pathfinder is a high fantasy game, and it felt important to have the bow be the quintessential weapon for fulfilling that fantasy.
Every other weapon or ranged single target striking option is going to come with set backs that make it less reliably the easiest way to do the most damage possible, (including the longbow which is a trap option for many characters).
I just think that if blasts are not going to be spells, then it is probably ok for a class designed around being a single target striker to be the best at using them to do single target damage. Maybe elemental blasts don't need to be restricted to only one class, in the same way that firearms didn't end up needing to be restricted to one class. Kineticists can do very cool things with their blasts that MC characters won't be able to, for example, maelstrom strike, and boosting their blast damage die with high level auras/form impulses, but maybe for those looking for a "blastslinger" type of character, class archetypes might be enough to make the "deadliest finger alive" type of character possible without requiring saddling an entire class with the baggage that would be necessary for what that involves giving up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure why the dev team seems to think choosing one thing to be the best and never releasing something as good again is a good design choice, or how that's any better than power creep when the final result is the exact same (one option that's straight up the best and a bunch of other ones you only take if you want a specific flavor and don't mind being weaker).
Because, contrary to popular belief, being the easiest path to the most damage in the most common situation where that damage is useful only matters as much as that situation is ubiquitous to the game.
In a game where that gets up to 90% of encounters, like PF1, being hyper focused on "the best" option was usually enough. But in PF2, in my experience, being hyper focused on damage is probably only useful about 30-40% of the time, and other ways around the problem are often easier and more effective.
Being limited to mostly piercing damage is a very big limitation in many different situations.
Being able to do various types of different energy damage on top of physical damage is something that often becomes very useful in PF2 encounters and doesn't often happen when a character overspecializes in a specific weapon geared to do only one or two types of damage.
I see it often. "Hammers are the best weapon type most of the time," so the whole party goes melee using hammers, and they literally smash many difficult encounters that other parties struggle with, because prone on a solo boss is very effective, especially with attacks of opportunity, but then run into something that bludgeoning is useless against and no one is prepared to deal with the situation because everyone spent all their character resources preparing for the most common situations.
PF2 encounter design is amazing because the creatures are all very different from each other and sometimes being able to hit really hard with one attack with the greatest chance to crit will be better than flurrying lots of attacks at a creature, or hitting with attacks that can do a single point of splash damage on a miss can totally wreck a tough enemy that has an exploitable weakness.
Blasting as a hyper focus runs a big risk with this, which is why I think the developers generally avoided pushing singular energy damage types on elemental casters and the Kineticist, with the one exception of the fire blaster.
I just don't see how it would be possible to have a blaster archetype for the fighter that is balanced and not so completely inferior to bows that you feel bad for choosing it. Plus it is just such a giant flavor fail - the fighter is THE master of weapons, and at least for me a big part of the fantasy of an elemental blaster is that you never needed to learn how to use weapons because you can just shoot energy out of your hands.
Why not make the pure single target elemental blaster a subclass choice or class archetype for the kineticist? Again, the aesthetics and theme of the kineticist just fit a million times better to the fantasy of a destructive master of raw primitive magic than any other class in pathfinder.
Because this playtest kineticist establishes blasts as a weapon type. I mean, maybe make blaster the archetype build up from the monk instead of the fighter if that makes the narrative make the most sense, but I think if the goal of blastiest blaster is to replicate a martial character with a martial attack, let those chassis do the lifting, right?
The kineticist is still good with blasts. The "damage is awful crowd" will quiet down with even just another point or two of damage on the class, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get 3 or 4 points more damage.
The people who feel like kineticists can't hyperfocus on just blasting are the people this suggestion is for, and I honestly think the better solution is to make that an archetype that fits over a chassis built for single target damage instead of trying to force that chassis over a battlefield control and support chassis that is also a martial character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why "Diadem = good" but "Handwraps = bad." How are natural attacks like Kitsune foxfire different enough from what blasts are not to just have one item that is about empowering the natural power and strength of attacks that you harness from within yourself?
Why make more different items that won't benefit from existing ones and the expansion of them?
Most likely for the same reason they defended the Impulses when I said they had no reason to exist in the other topic. By themed felling.
Handwraps are much more associated with martial artists than anything else. Even this is the real reason why I don't think their flavor is bad. Because Avatar gave me this wuxia cultural sense of monk-inspired elemental benders.
There have been a whole spectrum of complaints about why blasts are not good enough, and I am willing to bet that a slight damage boost to them is going to be enough for many of those voices to be assuaged. But definitely not all of them, and no one of our opinions about what we want the Kineticist to look like in the end are really any more important than another's.
I honestly think the opposite. If only this is done, only a small part will be pleased.
People will continue to complain about other problems, such as weak Oveflows, few feats, 0 integration with multiclass, questionable balance between subclasses, excessive vulnerability to AoO and so on.The most likely is that it ends up being a super criticized class like the Witch and the Magus for having kept some of the main problems after the playtest (the Witch due to the questionable usefulness of the Familiar (OK it also has the chassis problems, but they stood out more after the playtest after reducing the number of spellslots) and the Magus due to the tremendous penalty AoO inflicts on their melee versions).
As far as the bow thing. It has been directly stated to us by the developers that the Shortbow was the easiest, most reliable way to do the most damage at range with lots of shots that the game is going to have. Pathfinder is a high fantasy game, and it felt important to have the bow be the quintessential weapon for fulfilling that fantasy.
Sorry, but this seems to me more like an excuse that was given than a reasonable reason.
Because let's face it, that doesn't happen with melee weapons!Thematically speaking, the weapon that best represents the fantasy felling are swords, but swords are not a super-weapon clearly better than all the others as with the bow. On the contrary, it is extremely well balanced, the longsword is good for the versatility of the damage, the bastard for being able to have the handle changed from 1 <-> 2 hands, tridents are great to be thrown and can be used melee, battleaxe has sweep and so on. They are much better balanced and this turned out really cool (better than it was in 3.5 PF1 where pretty much everyone just used a long sword/bastard). While in ranged weapons everyone already knows it is:
bows
...
...
...
Rest of ranged weapons.
To say that it's because the bows are thematically better and that's why they deserve this highlight, honestly it's a bad thing.
Coming back to the topic, I don't see any big problem with the kineticist using handwraps. The problem for me is just this hybrid mechanic where blasts receive the worst of all worlds between Spells and Strikes, which is AoO and be a subordinate action that can't be used by almost any other action, besides the low damage, use the martial stats to resolve hits and calculate the damage stat bonus of a supposedly magical attack instead of KAS.
I hope that in the release the designer decides if this thing is going to be martial or magical, this midfield is what's making the whole thing bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people who feel like kineticists can't hyperfocus on just blasting are the people this suggestion is for, and I honestly think the better solution is to make that an archetype that fits over a chassis built for single target damage instead of trying to force that chassis over a battlefield control and support chassis that is also a martial character.
I think a subclass is a much better answer here than an archetype. Archetypes are great for introducing some interestign flavor into your character, but they require enough pagespace that Paizo doesn't like using them for overly specific things. Worse yet, they're designed specifically so that anyone can take them, which means that they have some pretty serious balance limitations. Class Archetypes *could* overcome this, but Paizo has actually specifically said that they don't like the idea of making class archetypes that are too specific (too much effort for not enough payoff). That's even putting aside the fact that if it was fixed as an archetype, there's a good chance that the archetype wouldn't be immediate.
It doesn't need a whole list of feats to fix this. It needs a direct boost to some stuff that is either chassis or near-chassis, and maybe a limitation somewhere else to balance things out. That's a lot cleaner and easier to manage with a subclass than it is with an archetype or class archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but what about people who like the Human Torch and Firestarter? What about people who want to be more like Aqualad and Ice man?
What about them? Nothing about handwraps stops me from doing that.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, martial arts doesn't have anything to do it. Summoners use handwraps too and have nothing to do with martial arts. It's just a convenient way to enable martial scaling for non-weapon attacks, which fits the kineticist perfectly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being limited to mostly piercing damage is a very big limitation in many different situations.
Only two actually. Resistance to piercing and immunity to piercing. Both of which are more common than with the other physical damage types but still aren't common enough to matter with any regularity.
Being able to do various types of different energy damage on top of physical damage is something that often becomes very useful in PF2 encounters and doesn't often happen when a character overspecializes in a specific weapon geared to do only one or two types of damage.
I see it often. "Hammers are the best weapon type most of the time," so the whole party goes melee using hammers, and they literally smash many difficult encounters that other parties struggle with, because prone on a solo boss is very effective, especially with attacks of opportunity, but then run into something that bludgeoning is useless against and no one is prepared to deal with the situation because everyone spent all their character resources preparing for the most common situations.
Ah yes the overspecialization of...having level appropriate runes on your weapon. In case you've forgotten, outside of ABP you're limited by finances more than anything. If you aren't running the best weapon for the greatest number of encounters, you're just doing the party a disservice. Nothing wrong with keeping a sidearm though. Flails (the true best weapon group) have access to bludgeoning and slashing, the best crit spec, finesse and reach in both 1h and 2h varieties. They even have trip on the 2h weapons.
For the greater majority that have no issue having their primary weapon be "the best" 90%+ of the time and needing to adjust occasionally, stick with your flails and bows. For those of you losing sleep, inventor dedication gives you modular (or versatile for simple weapons) at 8 so you can almost completely ignore anything that isn't resist phys or resist all. And if possible, bribe, cajole and/or bully your gm until they use ABP. Your whole table will thank you.
With that out of the way, blasts will never be allowed to exceed bows because the Fighter doesn't have native access and niche protection dictates that none will ever so blatantly have access to a ranged strike better than what Fighter has baseline (we'll ignore bow Magus mcPsychic). They could have tried to approach it from a different direction, but as with sorc, the four elements are fire, phys, phys and phys so damage type is pretty much a wash. The closest you get is str to ranged attacks but str kineticist is a joke at present.
"The Kineticist getting better at blasting hinges less on a Kineticist's increasing mastery of their element and more on 'buying better handwraps'."I mean, that's just a description of being a martial in PF2. You're entirely dependent on magic to make your attacks relevant as your level goes up. Replace Kineticist with Barbarian or Monk in that sentence and it holds up (albeit element takes on a more metaphorical meaning but that's splitting hairs).
It sucks but that's just the game Paizo wanted.
ABP neatly solves this.
It was in a thread about firearm design. I can't remember which one though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thread was “What do you feel about 2e guns”
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Won’t this solve the “I just want a good blaster” problem, but still allow the kineticist to be the master of battlefield control, get access to the more fun/expansive feats, and just be a little behind in accuracy, but with flexible feats and all that stuff, as well as gate restricted feats, which could include class damage boosters (like it does now).
I want to narrow in on this because I'm one of the people who said they wanted the kineticist to be a damage dealer first and foremost. "The master of battlefield control" should be the wizard. The wizard should be laying down walls, setting up damaging areas for zone control, incompacitating enemies, summoning monsters to take hits and applying debuffs. That is what full spellcasters should be doing, and most especially the wizard. How much like a full spellcaster should this class be?
IMO Wizard role isn't just a strict battle field controller. It's more like all-rounder spellcaster that can play many different roles depending from how do you prepare it.
If you what it be a BF controller so prepare spells that controls the BF, if you want it to be a debuffer, prepare debuffs and so on. The only 2 situations that I think it's not a good class is for pure blaster, specially for games with too many encounters per day like APs due the lack of good offensive focus spells and it's restricted focus recovery and as full versatile caster due the need to learn spells and to prepare them during your daily preparations. It's very hard to have many situational spells ready when you don't know what you will face.
Won’t this solve the “I just want a good blaster” problem, but still allow the kineticist to be the master of battlefield control, get access to the more fun/expansive feats, and just be a little behind in accuracy, but with flexible feats and all that stuff, as well as gate restricted feats, which could include class damage boosters (like it does now).I want to narrow in on this because I'm one of the people who said they wanted the kineticist to be a damage dealer first and foremost. "The master of battlefield control" should be the wizard. The wizard should be laying down walls, setting up damaging areas for zone control, incompacitating enemies, summoning monsters to take hits and applying debuffs. That is what full spellcasters should be doing, and most especially the wizard. How much like a full spellcaster should this class be?
So you clearly have a take that rejects everything about the playtest Kineticist, which is a fine perspective to have on the playtest. It is possible that if the surveys show that the vast majority of people agree with you, that they will redesign the class from the ground up. The 3 groups I play with however had pretty warm responses to the class as a whole, and the utility/battlefield control options were all very, very popular. I would be pretty surprised if that experience was that unusual since it was in three different groups of players.
I think it is more likely that there will be no single target blaster focus possible with the final Kineticist than there will be a complete overhaul of the class to make it focus entirely on single target blasting, but I think a couple of feats in the vein of Fusion Blast, as well as a moderate/low damage boost on the class as a whole is certainly possible, and I am confident that damage focused Kineticists will outperform unmodified cantrip casting for single target damage output, since the playtest version already does and is very close to outperforming the cantrip + shortbow combo.
I think it is interesting though that the damage booster that the developers wanted to test out in the play test (stoke element) is clearly much better on multi-target attacks (specifically a large AoE burst, since it only applies to one damage roll), rather than single target blasting though, which is why I think it is a good idea to temper expectations.
I have been wrong about the direction of classes from the playtest before though so I am not trying to voice my opinions as universal facts. Only try to encourage people to step back from their incoming expectations for the class and give honest feedback about how the class actually presented plays.
Blasts as weapon-like is a better direction for the game than blasts as cantrips though because it makes them infinitely more mod-able than if they were spells. We are getting 6 different elements in the Rage of Elements book, and unless the entire book is being given over to the Kineticist, having to have tons of feat options that don't really interact with any other part of the game to give blasts as much versatility and build potential would be a massive step in the wrong direction, especially if no other class is going to get effective use of them.
I would much rather see elemental options additive to more classes than a super siloed Kinteticist blaster class that has 6 different groups of unique feats that not even other Kineticists can really get access to (I have a hard time imagining that a universal gate is going to get all 6 in the final run even).
Oh, Sorcerer is undoubtedly the better class for building a blaster, they've got excellent focus spells for just blowing s!$& up, a class feat to boost all their blasting spells, etc.
But Sorcerer is probably the most open-ended spellcaster overall since they can pick any tradition and bloodlines have a diverse range of focus spells. And they just get 4 spells per level without any restrictions.
Well, they get 1 of those spells locked in by their bloodline. But yeah, they have a lot of flexibility, especially with Arcane and Occult evolutions plus Crossblooded.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Won’t this solve the “I just want a good blaster” problem, but still allow the kineticist to be the master of battlefield control, get access to the more fun/expansive feats, and just be a little behind in accuracy, but with flexible feats and all that stuff, as well as gate restricted feats, which could include class damage boosters (like it does now).I want to narrow in on this because I'm one of the people who said they wanted the kineticist to be a damage dealer first and foremost. "The master of battlefield control" should be the wizard. The wizard should be laying down walls, setting up damaging areas for zone control, incompacitating enemies, summoning monsters to take hits and applying debuffs. That is what full spellcasters should be doing, and most especially the wizard. How much like a full spellcaster should this class be?So you clearly have a take that rejects everything about the playtest Kineticist, which is a fine perspective to have on the playtest. It is possible that if the surveys show that the vast majority of people agree with you, that they will redesign the class from the ground up. The 3 groups I play with however had pretty warm responses to the class as a whole, and the utility/battlefield control options were all very, very popular. I would be pretty surprised if that experience was that unusual since it was in three different groups of players.
I think it is more likely that there will be no single target blaster focus possible with the final Kineticist than there will be a complete overhaul of the class to make it focus entirely on single target blasting, but I think a couple of feats in the vein of Fusion Blast, as well as a moderate/low damage boost on the class as a whole is certainly possible, and I am confident that damage focused Kineticists will outperform unmodified cantrip casting for single target damage output, since the playtest version already does and is very close to outperforming the cantrip +...
This is a "why not both" situation. The 1e kineticist was designed with the clear goal of being a blaster including it's ability to blast at will and then deal non-lethal damage to themselves to turn their blasts AoE and get other utility spell-like effects out of it. The expectation from everyone is someone who can reliably deal magical/elemental ranged damage in addition to being able to do big AoE blasts and some limit other spell-like effects. Such as mimicking grease with ice. I suggested at the beginning of the playtest that the designers start by making the blasts competitive/within the ballpark of a martial using a bow as a baseline so that they could do reliable damage which contributes to the party, and then design into that chassis the AoE, CC, utility etc with their magical powers, but making them the better at damage than these other things. My thoughts are keeping con as the main stat to put the accuracy slightly lower and adding back in a successor to burn in paying HP for more powerful effects adding to the reliance on con. The drawbacks I think are hefty enough to push this class more. I also wouldn't be opposed to the class making you only pick one or two elements, and maybe spending a feat for that second one or a third one(MAYBE). No omnielements
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a "why not both" situation. The 1e kineticist was designed with the clear goal of being a blaster including it's ability to blast at will and then deal non-lethal damage to themselves to turn their blasts AoE and get other utility spell-like effects out of it. The expectation from everyone is someone who can reliably deal magical/elemental ranged damage in addition to being able to do big AoE blasts and some limit other spell-like effects. Such as mimicking grease with ice. I suggested at the beginning of the playtest that the designers start by making the blasts competitive/within the ballpark of a martial using a bow as a baseline so that they could do reliable damage which contributes to the party, and then design into that chassis the AoE, CC, utility etc with their magical powers, but making them the better at damage than these other things. My thoughts are keeping con as the main stat to put the accuracy slightly lower and adding back in a successor to burn in paying HP for more powerful effects adding to the reliance on con. The drawbacks I think are hefty enough to push this class more. I also wouldn't be opposed to the class making you only pick one or two elements, and maybe spending a feat for that second one or a third one(MAYBE). No omnielements
A fighter/ranger/rogue martial with a bow is the best ranged, rapid-fire, single striking damage in the game. Saying, "Be as good as that, AND..." feels like it is setting yourself up for disappointment. Martials don't do that and fly all day while buffing all of their allies speed by 10ft and summon walls and elementals. Kineticists even get to use their blasts as melee attacks, which might not feel like a strict up grade because a ranged martial can fire in melee with the same penalties that kinetic blasts get in melee, but the blasts get useful melee traits that let them do even more damage with their blasts in melee than a martial with a bow can do.
Now I get you are saying "let's reign in some of that utility" as a part of your proposal, but I am saying that the players I played with all liked the utility better than doing 4 more points of damage per hit with a blast, or having a +2 accuracy to their blasts. Also, the utility is an all day value and it comes with a single feat selection for each ability so reigning it in effectively is pretty difficult.
Trying to fold in a Hit Point Burn system feels very unlikely with unlimited out of combat healing in PF2. It was also contentious in PF1 and the developers have repeated made it clear that their goal is not to recreate PF1 options, but create classes that fit well within the mechanics of PF2. Again, I could be painting egg onto my own face, but HP burn feels incredibly unlikely to make a comeback.
A little more damage options is likely, but getting up to a dedicated ranged martial with a bow is why I feel like if you want that, it would be better for blasts just to be attacks that martials can get access to and be able do about as much damage with as anyone can do with blasts, because that is the role those classes are built for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a "why not both" situation. The 1e kineticist was designed with the clear goal of being a blaster including it's ability to blast at will and then deal non-lethal damage to themselves to turn their blasts AoE and get other utility spell-like effects out of it. The expectation from everyone is someone who can reliably deal magical/elemental ranged damage in addition to being able to do big AoE blasts and some limit other spell-like effects. Such as mimicking grease with ice. I suggested at the beginning of the playtest that the designers start by making the blasts competitive/within the ballpark of a martial using a bow as a baseline so that they could do reliable damage which contributes to the party, and then design into that chassis the AoE, CC, utility etc with their magical powers, but making them the better at damage than these other things. My thoughts are keeping con as the main stat to put the accuracy slightly lower and adding back in a successor to burn in paying HP for more powerful effects adding to the reliance on con. The drawbacks I think are hefty enough to push this class more. I also wouldn't be opposed to the class making you only pick one or two elements, and maybe spending a feat for that second one or a third one(MAYBE). No omnielementsA fighter/ranger/rogue martial with a bow is the best ranged, rapid-fire, single striking damage in the game. Saying, "Be as good as that, AND..." feels like it is setting yourself up for disappointment. Martials don't do that and fly all day while buffing all of their allies speed by 10ft and summon walls and elementals. Kineticists even get to use their blasts as melee attacks, which might not feel like a strict up grade because a ranged martial can fire in melee with the same penalties that kinetic blasts get in melee, but the blasts get useful melee traits that let them do even more damage with their blasts in melee than a martial with a bow can do.
Now I get you are saying "let's reign in some of that...
I don't think this is very charitable to what I said
If I have the wrong read on what you are suggesting, feel free to clarify. Are you saying that you are of the opinion that a couple more points of damage, with perhaps another feat or two where you get to focus your blasts on one target would meet your expectations for the class?
If so, then I think you might be very happy with the results.
If I have the wrong read on what you are suggesting, feel free to clarify. Are you saying that you are of the opinion that a couple more points of damage, with perhaps another feat or two where you get to focus your blasts on one target would meet your expectations for the class?
If so, then I think you might be very happy with the results.
(Unicore is saying only a couple points of damage because the kineticist is only a couple points behind a martial with comparable range.)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Unicore is saying only a couple points of damage because the kineticist is only a couple points behind a martial with comparable range.)If I have the wrong read on what you are suggesting, feel free to clarify. Are you saying that you are of the opinion that a couple more points of damage, with perhaps another feat or two where you get to focus your blasts on one target would meet your expectations for the class?
If so, then I think you might be very happy with the results.
er kineticists have the worst damage output a martial could have and still be a martial. I know that sounds hyperbollic but it is really not. they have "low accuracy" (only half the time so not a huge deal but still noteworthy) they struggle to invest in str to do damage without grabbing medium armor from outside their class so their flat damage is low. They are restricted to the one hand damage dice sizes, and the two that are d8 are incredibly bland as weapons. They can get ranged attacks that key off str which is cool and unique but again the tools to invest in str do not exist within the class itself. saying that they are only a couple points behind is implying that sneak attack, or fighter accuracy, or esoteric enhancment, or divse a stratagem, or hunters edge or rage or your choice of accuracy or damage booster that literally every other martial has only constitute "a couple points of damage"
Hell, untill level 13 bomber alchemist will outdamage a kineticist strike for strike since they can add their key stat to damage (ish) and do not have to compromise defense to maintain their accuracy.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blasts would be in a good spot with con to damage for kineticists.
Kind of expecting something like this, or something similar at least. Paizo seems to have a habit of undershooting combat mechanics in the playtest and then buffing them.