What Roles do the Occult Classes fill?

[Wartex1]

I've been poking around for a while, trying to learn the Occult Classes, but I realized I needed to stop and think about what narrative and mechanical roles each class is trying to fill, both separate and alongside the other base classes.

So far, I've got it nailed down to this, but I don't really understand each class all that well to begin with (I've studied the Spiritualist the most out of the six):

Kineticist - Blaster
Spiritualist - Scout/Utility
Occultist - ??? (Harry Dresden wannabe)
Mesmerist - Face/Disabler
Psychic - Wizard
Medium - Whatever you need it to be (RPers dream and/or nightmare)

[Eldonauran]

The Occultist is a mixed bag, like the Medium, especially if you use the right archetypes. What implements you focus on determine your overall role. Each implement has a certain set of things it focuses on, with one or two unique abilities.

You can build as respectable Melee combatant with just two implements; Abjuration and Transmutation. Mimic a caster with Conjuration and Evocation. Scouting is easy with Divination and Illusion. Control with Enchantment and Necromancy. Considering the Occultist gets SEVEN of these over the course of their career, they can easily branch out and build their own niche. You even can choose to double up in a school, adding new spells to your list, rather than branching out.



Occultist - ??? (Harry Dresden wannabe)


Hey! It is perfectly acceptable to want to be like Harry. We consider that a compliment. :smallamused:

[Vhaidara]

Kineticist is actually really bad as a blaster, their damage output is really anemic.

Occultist is honestly what wizard should have been. Especially with the recent additions of Silksworn and Panoply Savant (from the February books, Psychic Anthology and Heroes of the High Court), you can build an Occultist to fill any role from primary caster (Silksworn) to a full on gish (Panoply Savant can end up getting good armors and full BAB)

[Eldonauran]

Kineticist is actually really bad as a blaster, their damage output is really anemic.

I don't know about that. I've played and DMed for kineticists. I see no anemia where their blasts are concerned, at least in the majority of gameplay. Just like every character, there exists encounters that render them impotent to a degree. It's one of the reasons I discourage hyper-specialization.

[Wartex1]

I heard that Kineticists got much, much better with the Player's Companion (some of which is now on the d20pfsrd).

Though I think every class got a boost from it, like the Spiritualist getting an archetype with several swappable animal companion phantoms which get most of the good animal companion stuff alongside their phantom abilities, plus it gets the ability to have two phantoms out at once later on.

[Kurald Galain]

Psychic - Full caster
Mesmerist - Primarily a single-target debuffer or disabler, although I've seen an effective melee mesmerist as well. Mesmerist makes a very versatile dip for numerous other classes.
Kineticist - A flavorful class, but in terms of mechanics it's basically a failure.
Spiritualist - Kind of like a druid with a different spell list and very different companion, but still a petmaster.
Occultist - Gish. Works well as the psychic equivalent of the warpriest or Magus.
Medium - Best in an environment with frequently changing party composition, the medium can basically sub as any other class role, but will be weaker than a true specialist. In a fixed party, its best role is that of party buffer via its Marshal's Order ability.

[Kurald Galain]

I heard that Kineticists got much, much better with the Player's Companion (some of which is now on the d20pfsrd).

You mean Psychic Anthology? I haven't seen any sweeping changes to the class (which would be needed to make it "much, much better"). What new options did you have in mind?

[Wartex1]

I don't own the book itself, but from what I've read, the Kineticist got a bunch of really good feats that they can take as well as some niche but useful abilities such as an aether ability which allows them to easily construct buildings out of force.

[Tuvarkz]

I don't know about that. I've played and DMed for kineticists. I see no anemia where their blasts are concerned, at least in the majority of gameplay. Just like every character, there exists encounters that render them impotent to a degree. It's one of the reasons I discourage hyper-specialization.

A kineticist's damage is really poor overall, and they can only match an archery build's constant reliable damage through going nova. It is more in their utility and control options that they have a niche to fill, if limited.

[Milo v3]

Tbh, kineticist is fine. People just are used to classes with a giant gap between optimisation floor and ceiling, while this class has it basically locked onto "math the game expects you to have" and nothing more or less.

[Gnaeus]

Kineticist is the PF truenamer. You can plow through needlessly complicated rules and if you dodge all the traps you can make one that doesn't totally suck. But only if you are a glutton for punishment because there's half a dozen ways that fill the niche better, easier. I think of them as a much worse Vizier or Mystic, but first party they could also be a much worse Magus, Alchemist or Sorcerer

[Psyren]

Medium is the 5th-man like a Binder or Incarnate that can fill a variety of roles.

Occultist is a T3 wizard, basically. It does that job in a greater variety of ways than a Staff Magus at least.


Kineticist is the PF truenamer. You can plow through needlessly complicated rules and if you dodge all the traps you can make one that doesn't totally suck. But only if you are a glutton for punishment because there's half a dozen ways that fill the niche better, easier. I think of them as a much worse Vizier or Mystic, but first party they could also be a much worse Magus, Alchemist or Sorcerer

This is kinda how I see them too. The amount of effort you need to put in just doesn't feel worth the bit of power you get. I was pretty disappointed with it. I need to go reread its handbooks a few dozen more times I guess.

[Mehangel]

Kineticist is the PF truenamer. You can plow through needlessly complicated rules and if you dodge all the traps you can make one that doesn't totally suck. But only if you are a glutton for punishment because there's half a dozen ways that fill the niche better, easier. I think of them as a much worse Vizier or Mystic, but first party they could also be a much worse Magus, Alchemist or Sorcerer

I also agree with this assessment.

[Albertus Magus]

Iirc, Kineticist is actually a fairly simple class with limited options; the burn mechanic is somewhat complicated, but once you've understood it, it is an elemental(+void/wood)-themed warlock that can serve as switch-hitter and has some utility.

[Bucky]

Kineticist can also build towards a melee gishy type that targets touch AC to make up for its lack of BAB.

[Kurald Galain]

Iirc, Kineticist is actually a fairly simple class with limited options;

It clearly has limited options, but it also strikes me as overly complicated, and with self-contradictory mecanics regarding burn. One thing it's clearly not is "fairly simple".

[Gnaeus]

It clearly has limited options, but it also strikes me as overly complicated, and with self-contradictory mecanics regarding burn. One thing it's clearly not is "fairly simple".

You have needless rules tying utility powers to element, so by picking element X you are blocking out powers Y and Z. There are some super trappy element combinations, because lots of their advanced attacks trigger both DR and Energy Resistance or 2 different energy resistances. While it can hit T4 with some optimization, it's far more complicated than anything else in T5. And I strongly believe it's a T5. You get spell type powers way after the casters do. It's like a ranger with bonus math. Who can shoot himself into unconsciousness.

[Manyasone]

While I generally agree with above comments on the Kineticist I would like to add that 3pp material, especially N. Jolly his fabolous "Kineticists of Porphyra" series do make the class a lot more playable. Feats to enhance the class which Paizo forgot or made ridiculous attempts at are included in said series as well as some rather nice extra Elements and talents

[Gnaeus]

While I generally agree with above comments on the Kineticist I would like to add that 3pp material, especially N. Jolly his fabolous "Kineticists of Porphyra" series do make the class a lot more playable. Feats to enhance the class which Paizo forgot or made ridiculous attempts at are included in said series as well as some rather nice extra Elements and talents

I believe that to be the case. But if I wanted a complicated energy shooting 3pp class, Mystic is staring me in the face. Or Vizier. Both unquestionably solid T3 without jumping through hoops.

[dude123nice]

Occultist - Gish. Works well as the psychic equivalent of the warpriest or Magus.

Pffff, no pounce or a replacement unless you take the teleport tactician feats and only at high level, and nothing to make up for lacking that option. Their melee buffs focus powers also take quite a bit time to set up, and because their limited spell selection, low number of spells and vulnerability to intimidate, using quicken spell to buff faster isn't worth it. The Occultist might be a decent or even good archer, but as melee i'd rate them fairly low. By the time they even begin to unload any real damage on an opponent the combat has most likely ended, even with full casters holding back and mostly buffing allies/debuffing enemies.

[Manyasone]

I believe that to be the case. But if I wanted a complicated energy shooting 3pp class, Mystic is staring me in the face. Or Vizier. Both unquestionably solid T3 without jumping through hoops.

I was thinking spheres of power elementalist, to be honest, but to each his own ☺

[Psyren]

While I generally agree with above comments on the Kineticist I would like to add that 3pp material, especially N. Jolly his fabolous "Kineticists of Porphyra" series do make the class a lot more playable. Feats to enhance the class which Paizo forgot or made ridiculous attempts at are included in said series as well as some rather nice extra Elements and talents

Is there a rewrite of the class out there somewhere? One that is a hell of a lot simpler to grasp? The thing is, I like the core idea of "at-will weakish powers, that you can power up by inflicting some kind of difficult-to-remove-penalty on yourself as a soft daily limit, and Con-based casting." But it just seems like they went out of their way to make it needlessly convoluted.

During the OA playtest I stuck with the Psychic and Medium so I didn't give feedback on it, not that I would've anyway since the Kineticist thread dwarfed every other class by a wide margin. Peeps love their warlocks.

[Milo v3]

Is there a rewrite of the class out there somewhere? One that is a hell of a lot simpler to grasp? The thing is, I like the core idea of "at-will weakish powers, that you can power up by inflicting some kind of difficult-to-remove-penalty on yourself as a soft daily limit, and Con-based casting." But it just seems like they went out of their way to make it needlessly convoluted.
He did recently release a revised kineticist. But it's more "complex" not less iirc. Though, I don't really see how it's that complex of a class... my newbie players had more difficultly with alchemist than kineticist.

[Mehangel]

Is there a rewrite of the class out there somewhere? One that is a hell of a lot simpler to grasp?

You mean like Spheres of Power's Elementalist (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/elementalist)?

[Psyren]

You mean like Spheres of Power's Elementalist (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/elementalist)?

I was hoping for one that didn't require grokking an entirely new subsystem.


He did recently release a revised kineticist. But it's more "complex" not less iirc. Though, I don't really see how it's that complex of a class... my newbie players had more difficultly with alchemist than kineticist.

Bully for them but I don't see nearly as many complaints about Alchemist personally. (Hell, I see people having more trouble with Magus than Alchemist usually.)

[Milo v3]

Bully for them but I don't see nearly as many complaints about Alchemist personally. (Hell, I see people having more trouble with Magus than Alchemist usually.)
I actually haven't had a player ever take Magus strangely.

[Kurald Galain]

Bully for them but I don't see nearly as many complaints about Alchemist personally. (Hell, I see people having more trouble with Magus than Alchemist usually.)

Yes. Alchemist is straightforward about throwing flasks and they go boom; the only thing you have to learn is the splash weapon rules (and maybe take Infusion so the class acts like most players expect it to).

Magus is somewhat complicated because it has two mechanics that can interact in a variety of ways (spell combat + spellstrike). Kinny is very complicated because it has a multitude of mechanics (burn, gather power, overflow, buffer) that all interact in nonintuitive ways, particularly since some of these mechanics assume that you should avoid burn, and others assume you should get as much burn as possible. Most kinny players I've seen were misreading the class in some way (and then change characters after a couple of levels, once they realize that any blaster or archer or alchemist is much more straightforward to play and clearly outdamages them).

[dude123nice]

I actually haven't had a player ever take Magus strangely.

Man, I like the Magus as a class, but from a in-universe point of view they don't fit into almost any fantasy stereotype present in Golarion. There is a reason there are almost no magus NPCs as either.

[Psyren]

Man, I like the Magus as a class, but from a in-universe point of view they don't fit into almost any fantasy stereotype present in Golarion. There is a reason there are almost no magus NPCs as either.

They seem to fit elves to a tee to me. Elves loving both swordplay and wizardry (especially einhander) goes back practically to 1E, and we see it pop up in other settings too like Dragon Age's Arcane Warrior. The only reason it's harder to see in Golarion is because they did away with racial favored class restrictions.

Of course, Magi aren't elf-exclusive by any means - but I could easily see them being the genesis of those particular techniques.

...what were we talking about?

[Kurald Galain]

There is a reason there are almost no magus NPCs as either.

Wait, what? Ever hear of Chalfon Dalsine? Lady Arodeth? Seltyiel?

[dude123nice]

Wait, what? Ever hear of Chalfon Dalsine? Lady Arodeth? Seltyiel?

Every class has one iconic member, and I didn't say that there were absolutely no magus character, just that there are very few of them, and that they have almost no lore besides what is given in the class and archetype entries.

[digiman619]

Kineticist is the PF truenamer. You can plow through needlessly complicated rules and if you dodge all the traps you can make one that doesn't totally suck. But only if you are a glutton for punishment because there's half a dozen ways that fill the niche better, easier. I think of them as a much worse Vizier or Mystic, but first party they could also be a much worse Magus, Alchemist or Sorcerer
I actually saw a correlation with Kenny and the 3.5 Soulknife. Think about it: Both are from a book about a new subsystem for mind powers, but don't cast/manifest. They are clearly meant to be the fighters of the splat, but only had 3/4th BAB and were restricted to light armor. And both had an interesting idea behind them that earns a lot of love, but are flawed mechanically (3.5 soulknife's mindblade scaling slower than what you could get from WBL, Kinnny's not being able to decide whether or not having burn is a good or bad thing) that they basically require 3rd party material to be playable (DSP's Pathfinder Soulknife and the aforementioned Kinetisists of Porphoria).



You mean like Spheres of Power's Elementalist (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/elementalist)?
I was hoping for one that didn't require grokking an entirely new subsystem.

The rules for the new subsystem fit on two pages (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/using-spheres-of-power) as opposed to the 30 or so default Vancian magic does. It's not like we're talking about calculus or anything.

[Gnaeus]

He did recently release a revised kineticist. But it's more "complex" not less iirc. Though, I don't really see how it's that complex of a class... my newbie players had more difficultly with alchemist than kineticist.

I had to use Jolly's guide to figure it out. It's a good guide, and I can't see building one of these without it. I never had any problem with Alchemist and I think you'd need strong negative optimization to make it unplayable.

I also had the time when I really, really wanted a long duration blaster class doing fire + entangle for an endurance game. I churned my way through Kenny, because it seemed like exactly what it was made for. Then I rebuilt as an alchemist, who couldn't blast at will, but had more blasts than I could ever use, and was better in every other way.

[Bucky]

Kinnny's not being able to decide whether or not having burn is a good or bad thing

I thought the trick was to choose either a low-burn or high-burn strategy and build your Kineticist around that style.

[Milo v3]

Man, I like the Magus as a class, but from a in-universe point of view they don't fit into almost any fantasy stereotype present in Golarion. There is a reason there are almost no magus NPCs as either.
Does golarion not have warrior mages? :smallconfused:

[Krazzman]

Does golarion not have warrior mages? :smallconfused:

Apparently not. And all those Magus NPCs my PCs met were just epic level illusions.

Jokes aside though, looking at AP'S I think the most common enemies(named or goons) are fighters clerics rogues and wizards.

[digiman619]

Apparently not. And all those Magus NPCs my PCs met were just epic level illusions.

Jokes aside though, looking at AP'S I think the most common enemies(named or goons) are fighters clerics rogues and wizards.

Well, to be fair, a good chunk of the APs were written before Ultimate Magic. Heck ,a few of them were written before the Core Rulebook!

[Calthropstu]

I am seeing a lot of hate for the kinetecist, and am just not seeing it. I watched one dominate our encounters, doing some pretty sweet wall maneuvers and I saw him trick out one of his blasts to nearly 200 damage at 11th lvl.
I was moderately impressed.

[Psyren]

The rules for the new subsystem fit on two pages (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/using-spheres-of-power) as opposed to the 30 or so default Vancian magic does. It's not like we're talking about calculus or anything.

Missing the point - it's not just about me learning the new subsystem, in order to actually use it I'd have to get everyone else at the table to do so too. Justified or not, people are just naturally resistant to that.



Apparently not. And all those Magus NPCs my PCs met were just epic level illusions.

Jokes aside though, looking at AP'S I think the most common enemies(named or goons) are fighters clerics rogues and wizards.

Well, to be fair, a good chunk of the APs were written before Ultimate Magic. Heck ,a few of them were written before the Core Rulebook!

Indeed. Actually I've wondered - how tough would it be to rebuild most of the Wizard-based Eldritch Knights in NPC Codex as Magi?

[Eldonauran]

I am seeing a lot of hate for the kinetecist, and am just not seeing it. I watched one dominate our encounters, doing some pretty sweet wall maneuvers and I saw him trick out one of his blasts to nearly 200 damage at 11th lvl.
I was moderately impressed.

That's what I don't understand. The earth kineticist (metal comp) in my Iron Gods game swings damage around like the hulk does trees. I've been rewriting encounters in the book to help keep the battles from turning into a two-round affair. Mostly keep the CR within 2 of the original and sprinkle in some minions to help with action economy.

Keep in mind that I am aware other classes can do this kind of damage and be assured that I accommodate the encounters similarly for them as well. I just don't see the kineticist as being a poor blaster.

We handle level ups at plot points, rather than xp per kill, so there is little incentive to power through enemies at a rapid rate. The more they blast through their enemies, and the easier they do so, readily assures that word will spread of their power and enemies that may be watching them prepare accordingly.

[Kurald Galain]

TKeep in mind that I am aware other classes can do this kind of damage and be assured that I accommodate the encounters similarly for them as well. I just don't see the kineticist as being a poor blaster.

The thing is that any archer build, alchemist, or sorcerer casting either Snowball or Scorching Ray will easily outdamage the kinny, and the latter two also have strong utility to bring to the table (and the archer has trick arrows). That doesn't mean the kinny is bad at blasting, but it clearly isn't great either.

But what people tend to dislike about the kinny is that (1) it's needlessly complicated, making it harder to build and play than the three mentioned above; (2) its elemental restrictions mean that your three favorite powers probably aren't allowed together in one build; and (3) almost all of its utility is weaker versions of spells, that it gets about three levels later than anybody else.

Overall, it compares poorly to 3E's Warlock class in both power and versatility; and since Paizo had about a decade to learn from that, the kinny could have been so much better.

[digiman619]

Missing the point - it's not just about me learning the new subsystem, in order to actually use it I'd have to get everyone else at the table to do so too. Justified or not, people are just naturally resistant to that.
That's a legitimate point, and if your table isn't willing to learn a new subsystem, then there's not much you can do. Though part of me is grumbling that your players will apparently read the 9.5 pages of the kineticist, but not the 2 pages of the basic rules of SoP.

[Serafina]

The Kineticist works in isolation - it's system doesn't interact with any other class.
Spheres of Power does - it's a system to replace spellcasting, so it interacts with every spellcaster class.

And to a lot of people, it's plain weird if one character uses vancian spellcasting, and another uses a system meant to replace that. Tome of Battle had the same problem - "why are these fighters just capable of swinging their swords, while these other fighters get to do these cool things" was a common question. Likewise, I imagine a lot of people would feel similar about Spheres of Power.
The Kineticist just avoids that problem because it's mechanics don't affect anything any other class does. In that way, it's similar to Warlocks or Shadowcasters.

Of course, there's also some "this is first party content" effect, because a lot of people are more resistant towards getting into third-party stuff. Even if it's really great, balanced, fun and interesting.

[dude123nice]

Apparently not. And all those Magus NPCs my PCs met were just epic level illusions.

Jokes aside though, looking at AP'S I think the most common enemies(named or goons) are fighters clerics rogues and wizards.

There are very few Magus characters in APs even after Ultimate Magic. You can ad whatever classes you want in your campaigns but in the default Golarion that Paizo presents us there really aren't that many warrior mages.

Also I think almost every other base class other than hybrid classes appears more often than the magus, even the Gunslinger.

[digiman619]

The Kineticist works in isolation - it's system doesn't interact with any other class.
Spheres of Power does - it's a system to replace spellcasting, so it interacts with every spellcaster class.

And to a lot of people, it's plain weird if one character uses vancian spellcasting, and another uses a system meant to replace that. Tome of Battle had the same problem - "why are these fighters just capable of swinging their swords, while these other fighters get to do these cool things" was a common question. Likewise, I imagine a lot of people would feel similar about Spheres of Power.
The Kineticist just avoids that problem because it's mechanics don't affect anything any other class does. In that way, it's similar to Warlocks or Shadowcasters.

Of course, there's also some "this is first party content" effect, because a lot of people are more resistant towards getting into third-party stuff. Even if it's really great, balanced, fun and interesting.

Point of order: While SoP can replace Vancian, it doesn't have to, as evidenced by the Bokor prestige class (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/bokor) which mixes the two, much like the Mystic Theurge before it. (and if we want to go further back, like the Noctumancer, Eldritch Disciple, Cerebremancer, Anima Mage, etc.)

[Kurald Galain]

Also I think almost every other base class other than hybrid classes appears more often than the magus, even the Gunslinger.

Let's see some evidence, then.

[dude123nice]

Let's see some evidence, then.

Nah, don't care enough to put that much work in.

[Krazzman]

There are very few Magus characters in APs even after Ultimate Magic. You can ad whatever classes you want in your campaigns but in the default Golarion that Paizo presents us there really aren't that many warrior mages.

Also I think almost every other base class other than hybrid classes appears more often than the magus, even the Gunslinger.

In Hell's Vengeance the party faces roughly (my cat deleted my last reply when I was in the last book as such the counts are not exact anymore...) 70-90 Paladin, 15 Warpriest, 5 Inquisitor, ~40 Cleric, 7 Sorcerer, 5 Bard, 1 Arcane Trickster, 2 Magus and 1 Gunslinger.

I think with that mass of Paladins, Clerics, Warpriests and Inquisitors if it weren't a "Holy War" Campaign it would feature more Magus.

[Gnaeus]

The thing is that any archer build, alchemist, or sorcerer casting either Snowball or Scorching Ray will easily outdamage the kinny, and the latter two also have strong utility to bring to the table (and the archer has trick arrows). That doesn't mean the kinny is bad at blasting, but it clearly isn't great either.

But what people tend to dislike about the kinny is that (1) it's needlessly complicated, making it harder to build and play than the three mentioned above; (2) its elemental restrictions mean that your three favorite powers probably aren't allowed together in one build; and (3) almost all of its utility is weaker versions of spells, that it gets about three levels later than anybody else.

Overall, it compares poorly to 3E's Warlock class in both power and versatility; and since Paizo had about a decade to learn from that, the kinny could have been so much better.

And it can be bad at blasting if you take the wrong trap options. Archers get tricks that break DR, Kenny gets blasts that hit DR, SR and ER. Yeah, they get better ones also, but poor element choice can wreck you.

Almost every class converted better into PF. The ones that are clearly weaker are Druid and warlock >Kenny. Druid probably needed the nerf. Warlock never did. Just ask to play a warlock

[Tuvarkz]

That's what I don't understand. The earth kineticist (metal comp) in my Iron Gods game swings damage around like the hulk does trees. I've been rewriting encounters in the book to help keep the battles from turning into a two-round affair. Mostly keep the CR within 2 of the original and sprinkle in some minions to help with action economy.

This is not a particularly rare thing. APs are balanced around players being slightly more coordinated than PFS ones, and a solid party will need all of the combat encounters to be tuned up-as a general assumption, an optimized party will tear through a CR+0 to CR +2/+3 encounter in one round.

[dude123nice]

In Hell's Vengeance the party faces roughly (my cat deleted my last reply when I was in the last book as such the counts are not exact anymore...) 70-90 Paladin, 15 Warpriest, 5 Inquisitor, ~40 Cleric, 7 Sorcerer, 5 Bard, 1 Arcane Trickster, 2 Magus and 1 Gunslinger.

I think with that mass of Paladins, Clerics, Warpriests and Inquisitors if it weren't a "Holy War" Campaign it would feature more Magus.

IMHO considering where the AP is set it couldn't be anything other than a "Holly War". And really the setting is why there are so few magus in Golarion. It seems to me that there aren't many cultures on Golarion where blending spell casting and sword play would be encouraged. The Elves, who in other settings are the most likely to go down this path, are here focused more on nature instead, while occasionally going full Wizard, but not Magus. So the one potential culture for Magus characters got gutted.

[Calthropstu]

IMHO considering where the AP is set it couldn't be anything other than a "Holly War". And really the setting is why there are so few magus in Golarion. It seems to me that there aren't many cultures on Golarion where blending spell casting and sword play would be encouraged. The Elves, who in other settings are the most likely to go down this path, are here focused more on nature instead, while occasionally going full Wizard, but not Magus. So the one potential culture for Magus characters got gutted.

I know what you mean. And there really isn't much of a demand for magus in everyday life either. They woulf suck in an army, and the only thing they do really well is high damage output. Good for killing monsters and little else, unlike a monk who can do great crowd control or the fighter who can tank through a crowd or a wizard who can handle arcane crisis... anything a magus can do, one of the other classes can do just as well and likely better. So there's little need for one outside of acventuring groups.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great class... but the supporting fluff is extremely lacking.

[Krazzman]

IMHO considering where the AP is set it couldn't be anything other than a "Holly War". And really the setting is why there are so few magus in Golarion. It seems to me that there aren't many cultures on Golarion where blending spell casting and sword play would be encouraged. The Elves, who in other settings are the most likely to go down this path, are here focused more on nature instead, while occasionally going full Wizard, but not Magus. So the one potential culture for Magus characters got gutted.

It's set in cheliax. The main opposition is the follow ship of Iomedae. As such encountering just one means there are more.

The party faces a Magus in the first book. Another one in book 4 or 5. In book 4 they encounter a gunslinger and in 5 a psychic.

In all books they encounter ~7 wizards and ~8 sorcerers. Exactly one summoner. No occultists, no mesmerists, no bloodragers.

Your claim that there are double the amount of Gunslinger than magus is according to my sample size false. I think that you are mistaken as for every class there is at least some sample size. The problem Magi face is role specific as they are warrior mages... and how many of those will the party face? They have to compete with bards, Warpriest, occultists, hunters, mesmerists and Eldritch Knights.

Unless we add up every mention of a class in the AP'S or the books and remove the duplicates we can't find proof of either claim.


On Topic:
Or at least the current. I am one of those Warlock fanatics. In my last 4 3.5 campaigns I played a warlock twice one time single classed one time multiclass with cleric. 2 weeks ago I finally got my copy of Occult Adventures and am now deeply saddened by the Kineticist. Conceptually I love him and I think in our normal gestalt using campaigns I can salvage him a good deal... but I absolutely abhor their Burn mechanic.

[digiman619]

It's set in cheliax. The main opposition is the follow ship of Iomedae. As such encountering just one means there are more.

The party faces a Magus in the first book. Another one in book 4 or 5. In book 4 they encounter a gunslinger and in 5 a psychic.

In all books they encounter ~7 wizards and ~8 sorcerers. Exactly one summoner. No occultists, no mesmerists, no bloodragers.

Your claim that there are double the amount of Gunslinger than magus is according to my sample size false. I think that you are mistaken as for every class there is at least some sample size. The problem Magi face is role specific as they are warrior mages... and how many of those will the party face? They have to compete with bards, Warpriest, occultists, hunters, mesmerists and Eldritch Knights.

Unless we add up every mention of a class in the AP'S or the books and remove the duplicates we can't find proof of either claim.


On Topic:
Or at least the current. I am one of those Warlock fanatics. In my last 4 3.5 campaigns I played a warlock twice one time single classed one time multiclass with cleric. 2 weeks ago I finally got my copy of Occult Adventures and am now deeply saddened by the Kineticist. Conceptually I love him and I think in our normal gestalt using campaigns I can salvage him a good deal... but I absolutely abhor their Burn mechanic.

If you want a good Warlock-style blaster class, check out the Elementalist (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/elementalist). It uses Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/) and gets to blast with the best of them. The flexibility of SoP lets you add whatever other abilities you want ( invisibility, transformation, summons, teleports, whatever)to the mix as well.

[Bucky]

PFSRD Bestiary preconstructed characters by class
Gunslinger - 3
Kineticist - 2 (?)
Magus - 2
Mesmerist - 3

[Krazzman]

If you want a good Warlock-style blaster class, check out the Elementalist (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/elementalist). It uses Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/) and gets to blast with the best of them. The flexibility of SoP lets you add whatever other abilities you want ( invisibility, transformation, summons, teleports, whatever)to the mix as well.

I am not interested in SoP. Next time I play a blaster will be a snowball abusing sorcerer... most likely.

[Wartex1]

What do people think about classes other than the Kineticist (both functionally enjoyability and meta/optimization standpoints)?

I know Medium is kind of divisive from what I've heard.

[Calthropstu]

What do people think about classes other than the Kineticist (both functionally enjoyability and meta/optimization standpoints)?

I know Medium is kind of divisive from what I've heard.

I heard that if you play a halfling or gnome medium and break the law, you become a small medium at large.

[Serafina]

The Medium is actually a pretty decent class, but people have roughly the same two complaints about it as with the Kineticist:
- it's daily resource is way too limited
- it isn't quite capable of what the class promised
Okay, that's pretty generic. So let's get more specific.


First, Influence is an extremely limited resource. You get three uses per day, with one additional use at 9th level - and that's it.
There's no way to get more uses, even with feats, items or anything else.

Now, you can get uses of Spirit Surge via Taboos, forgoing powers, and the right favored class bonus - but that's still only a handful of uses. But this isn't the part that really hurts.
No, it really hurst when you have spirit powers that demand influence.
Want to use a Marshals Decisive Strike? Sorry, you only get to do that four times per day at most. That really, really hurst what would otherwise be a really great and unique power.
The same goes, albeit to a lesser extent, for an Archmages Wild Arcana and a Tricksters Transfer Magic.

And I think this especially stings since these are basically the powers unique to the Medium, while all the other abilities are about emulating another class.


Second, in which ways does the class not work as advertised?
Well, most of it's appeal is about changing your role daily to fit exactly what the party needs. Often, you don't really need that - and if your party needs a "Rogue", you're better off playing some other class than a pure Trickster Medium.

But that aside, the classes flexibility is severely hampered by not having any swappable feats. Yes, you can take the Legendary Influence feat - but that eats up precious Influence! In addition, it's only one feat, and you can't meet any prerequisites with it - that hardly allows for a lot of flexibility. Well, you can take it again via Improved Legendary Influence, but that has the same issues, and you can't go any deeper than that.
So you can't actually switch very easily between roles. You can't be a caster with appropriate feats one day, then an energy channeler the other, and a Fighter the next - you don't have the feats for that.

Then there's the fact that your flexibility during any given day isn't great. You only get Trance of Three at 15th level, and a lot of people just wish you got that a lot sooner.

So a lot of people expected a highly flexible character, maybe with some unique powers, and we only kinda-sorta got that.


Personally, I'm also baffled by this because it wouldn't have been particularly hard to fix!

First, it'd have been easy to be a bit more liberal with Spirit Surge. It's in a lot of ways comparable to, say, an Investigators Inspiration. I'd honestly just decouple it from Influence entirely, and make it two free uses per day, plus your Charisma modifier uses if you take a Taboo. You're still limited to using it once per round, and it still won't be enough to use it all day long, but now it's more valuable.

Second, don't make Propitiation a class feature - make it a feat, which you can take multiple times for multiple uses per day. (Or keep it as a class feature, but put in an Extra Propitiation feat).
Also make it more interesting - I'd go with a "make a pledge to your spirit, if you fulfill it during the day you reduce Influence by one". Ideas for those can be taken from taboos, and if you want to be especially nice take some inspiration from Warlord Gambits and actually give you the ability to use it.

Third, change the Legendary Influence feat. It doesn't incur Influence. You can take it multiple times, and it can meet the prerequisites for both itself and spirit-granted feats (and vice versa, in case of spirits that grant feats). You can change it for a gold cost or such by attuning to a different spirit of the particular legend.
Actually, it might be a good idea to just outright make it a class feature. Alternatively, you get it as a bonus feat at first level (it's always nice to call out vital class mechanics such as this within the class writeup itself) and can take it a total amount of times equal to your spirit bonus.

Fourth, some minor fixes here and there. Guardian getting heavy armor proficiency is silly - who carries around a spare armor? Just make it proficiency with shields, a natural armor bonus to AC or such, and if you really want a glammer-effect for your armor that can make it look heavier. There's some other tweaks like this that could smooth out the class.

Fifth, I'd get rid of having to channel a legend at a specific location. You can channel them anywhere, because circumstances taking away PC-powers like this isn't a good thing - it's okay if the GM plans for it, but like this it just outright happens in some campaigns! Instead, you can contact a new spirit of a legend in appropriate locations, which can allow you to swap some of the choices made with a spirit (such as Legendary Influence feats, Archmage and Hierophant spells, or Champion feats).

And finally - why not make it possible to use powers from spirits other than the one you're channeling? With these changes, having more uses for Influence right away strikes me as a very good thing. It'd introduce Trance of Three as early as third level - yes, that means you can get access to intermediate powers much sooner! But if it costs Influence, I'd consider this a feature.
Alternatively, we can just do a rework:
- you start with the ability to do a quick seance (10 minutes?) that allows you to swap out your current spirit for another one. However, this gives the new spirit one more influence than you had with your last one (so you go from 1 to 2 with the first swap, then to three with the second, etc.). Flexibility!
- at, say, 7th level you get Trance of Three, working as it currently does.
- At, say, 11th level you can hot-swap your spirit for, say, (Charisma modifier) minutes, at the cost of one influence.


And if you're really worried about making the Medium stronger, then you can introduce some limiting factors too. Maybe you can only harbor (Charisma modifier) spirits at once, or just a set number that goes up with level (say, two at first, then up to six) - that way, all the hot-swapping isn't as strong, and you're more bound to having the right locations available (so that you can switch them).
All that is rather obvious changes IMO. Yes, it'd make the Medium stronger, but the class isn't particularly overwhelming on any one thing anyway. And this way, it fulfills it's original promise much better.

[dude123nice]

It's set in cheliax. The main opposition is the follow ship of Iomedae. As such encountering just one means there are more.

The party faces a Magus in the first book. Another one in book 4 or 5. In book 4 they encounter a gunslinger and in 5 a psychic.

In all books they encounter ~7 wizards and ~8 sorcerers. Exactly one summoner. No occultists, no mesmerists, no bloodragers.

Your claim that there are double the amount of Gunslinger than magus is according to my sample size false. I think that you are mistaken as for every class there is at least some sample size. The problem Magi face is role specific as they are warrior mages... and how many of those will the party face? They have to compete with bards, Warpriest, occultists, hunters, mesmerists and Eldritch Knights.

Unless we add up every mention of a class in the AP'S or the books and remove the duplicates we can't find proof of either claim.


I didn't say that there were DOUBLE the amount of gunslingers, just more, and I may have been wrong, but it was just a gut feeling. Given that Gunslingers are THE gun wielding class, I feel that you will have a member of the class appear whenever the Paizo team feel like adding a gun wielding enemy in a AP, and that because of this and the fact that the magus lore is, as Calthropstu mentioned, lacking and the fact that the Magus fits in well with very few preexisting organisations, means that you will ultimately have more gunslingers than magi. Gunslingers, by comparison, have a whole nation and region dedicated to their lore.

[Milo v3]

Fifth, I'd get rid of having to channel a legend at a specific location. You can channel them anywhere, because circumstances taking away PC-powers like this isn't a good thing - it's okay if the GM plans for it, but like this it just outright happens in some campaigns! Instead, you can contact a new spirit of a legend in appropriate locations, which can allow you to swap some of the choices made with a spirit (such as Legendary Influence feats, Archmage and Hierophant spells, or Champion feats).
That's mainly a flavour thing and it's intended that you can basically always find a suitable location for legend. There even is an FAQ which says "you can channel from any appropriate location, and the favored locations are just a place to start. There might be times where you don’t have access to all six legends, but a medium, either PC or NPC, should generally be able to access a legend if they can come up with a good conceptual tie between the legend and a location he can find or even set up himself. "

[Psyren]

That's a legitimate point, and if your table isn't willing to learn a new subsystem, then there's not much you can do. Though part of me is grumbling that your players will apparently read the 9.5 pages of the kineticist, but not the 2 pages of the basic rules of SoP.

That's my point though, they don't like either of them. Hence my request for a simpler rewrite that doesn't use subsystems.

[digiman619]

That's my point though, they don't like either of them. Hence my request for a simpler rewrite that doesn't use subsystems.

As Goldmember once said: Then there is no pleasing you. (couldn't find the appropriate image after, like 20 minutes of looking, so you just get a quote.)

[Psyren]

As Goldmember once said: Then there is no pleasing you. (couldn't find the appropriate image after, like 20 minutes of looking, so you just get a quote.)

Nah, I'm not going to run up the white flag just because one forumite's suggestion didn't help me :smalltongue: But it does mean I'll be looking on my own for a bit. Thanks anyway!

[Kurald Galain]

The Medium is actually a pretty decent class, but people have roughly the same two complaints about it as with the Kineticist:

Right. So the problem with the medium is that Paizo overvalues the ability for a character to switch its specialty around (because in a fixed party this is almost never needed), and the problem with the kinny is that Paizo overvalues at-will abilities (because if you get 12 rounds of combat per day, it doesn't matter whether you can blast 12 times per day or 1200 times).

Occultist, Mesmerist, and Psion are solid, though.

[upho]

Nah, I'm not going to run up the white flag just because one forumite's suggestion didn't help me :smalltongue: But it does mean I'll be looking on my own for a bit. Thanks anyway!You're probably already fully aware of this, but just in case: have a look at Forrestfire's Avowed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?509440-Forrestfire-Studios-Playtest-The-Avowed-a-3pp-warlock-with-a-psychic-bent) (currently wrapping up the open play test, soon to be released).

I think the avowed is more warlock-y, more flexible and has features significantly more intuitive and easy to use than the kineticist, aside from also having a conveniently high optimization floor without (AFAICT) a needlessly high ceiling. Definitely the best designed "PF warlock" class I've seen so far. It does have its own subsystem though, but at least it's one which I think is very easy to grasp immediately and which introduces very few basic mechanical concepts not already found in the CRB. And if your players are familiar with the 3.5 warlock, they'll probably find it very easy to build and play the avowed.

[Wartex1]

By Psion, I assume you mean Psychic? (though DSP's Psion looks solid as well)

How about Spiritualist?

[Gnaeus]

How about Spiritualist?

Ive just started playing mine. They seem solid T3, but will get grief for being weaker than Summoner.

[upho]

Ive just started playing mine. They seem solid T3, but will get grief for being weaker than Summoner.Really? I thought a class which can be described as "solid T3, filling roughly same role(s) as the summoner" would generally get a lot of praise (by people on this forum as well as those in my group), specifically because it's weaker than the summoner.

But since I don't have any experience with the spiritualist, maybe I'm missing something here.

[Coretron03]

Really? I thought a class which can be described as "solid T3, filling roughly same role(s) as the summoner" would generally get a lot of praise (by people on this forum as well as those in my group), specifically because it's weaker than the summoner.

But since I don't have any experience with the spiritualist, maybe I'm missing something here.

If people wanted a weaker summoner they would simply use the unchained summoner which is probably around tier 3.

[Serafina]

The Spiritualist can actually do some Unique Things (tm) with their Phantom, because Phantom get actual unique abilities depending on their type while Eidolongs mostly get more attacks, movement modes, skills and so on.

My favorite is probably the Reaper Spiritualist (https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/posts/7750839/) - kit your Fear-Phantom for Intimidate, use Soulless Gaze to make enemies cower, then finish them off with your Scythe-wielding Spiritualist using Dastardly Finish.
That's a pretty unique tag-team build that works so much better on the Spiritualist than on any other class because of the Phantoms own actions and it's unique abilities.
The only iffy thing is the GM allowing Damnation feats on your Phantom - I'd argue that they're great from a fluff-standpoint, but oh well. You also have to multiclass to get Dastardly Finish, but that's possible without losing Phantom-progression.

But that's not even the only unique build you can do with a Phantom, they can also be really great bodyguards, some come with nice area buffs or debuffs, and their ability to go incorporeal makes them nicely different from Eidolons too.

[upho]

By Psion, I assume you mean Psychic? (though DSP's Psion looks solid as well)Slightly OT, but I'd say DSP's psion is more than solid. In fact, I think it's the strongest class DSP has published so far, and the only one which unquestioningly belongs in T2 (though there are good arguments for the wilder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/wilder/) being T2 as well). It's also the only DSP class I've told my players they must be prepared to seriously hold back on optimization and/or expect homebrew content partially designed to nerf their PC's overall power.

As a side note, while I wouldn't say Paizo's occult classes necessarily fill the same fluff or crunch niches as DSP's psionics, if I for some reason had to choose which set to include in a game I'd definitely take DSP's psionics. Judging from what I've heard people say about the occult classes, psionics are generally better designed (notably being better balanced to each other as well as Paizo classes in general) and more distinctly different, on top of having a lot more support material than the occult classes.

[Wartex1]

They are very differently flavored though, so I'd include both.

The Occult Psychic powers are more akin to Horror Psychics, ghosts, and the "modern" supernatural. Meanwhile, psionics are much more "science flavored" for lack of a better term.

Both would work for C'thulhu-type stuff, though Occult matches the tone more from what I see. Psionics feel comic-bookish to me for some reason, though that might be that Soulknife is essentially Psylocke and Aegis is essentially Armor.

[upho]

If people wanted a weaker summoner they would simply use the unchained summoner which is probably around tier 3.And the un-summoner does get praise precisely because it's weaker than the summoner. (Although I'd say the un-summoner is higher than any other Paizo T3 class (maybe even low T2) mostly due to keeping the original Summon Monster SLA and having an excellent spell list.) So my question remains, why would the spiritualist get grief for being weaker than the summoner? In my own opinion as well as that a large majority of forumites AFAICT, "solid T3" is pretty much the golden standard for a class.

[Wartex1]

I think it might be that despite appearing like a weaker Summoner, it doesn't play like a Summoner and is deceiving. It's a "pet class" that plays unlike the other "pet classes" in that the companion is not an effective direct combatant, but a vehicle for spells and other features depending on the emotional focus or archetype.

[upho]

They are very differently flavored though, so I'd include both.Yeah, and I allow both in my current game (with the possible exception of a kineticist due to it requiring such tremendous amounts of optimization in order to generate a PC on equal footing with the other classes).


The Occult Psychic powers are more akin to Horror Psychics, ghosts, and the "modern" supernatural. Meanwhile, psionics are much more "science flavored" for lack of a better term.I think I see what you mean, and generally I agree. Although I'd also like to point out that certain psionic options are actually more horror themed (see for example the dread (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/dread/) class).


Both would work for C'thulhu-type stuff, though Occult matches the tone more from what I see. Psionics feel comic-bookish to me for some reason, though that might be that Soulknife is essentially Psylocke and Aegis is essentially Armor.Well, I'd say occult are perhaps better matching the emotional aspects of lovecraftian horror, while psionics are probably better matching the body horror aspects. And regarding the comic-bookish feel, I can agree as well, even aside from the most direct comparisons. I think especially psionic powers definitely have more of an X-Men vibe to them than spells.


I think it might be that despite appearing like a weaker Summoner, it doesn't play like a Summoner and is deceiving. It's a "pet class" that plays unlike the other "pet classes" in that the companion is not an effective direct combatant, but a vehicle for spells and other features depending on the emotional focus or archetype.Ah, yes, the huge difference in how the spiritualist uses his pet may of course cause grief, at least in terms of "not meeting player expectations from a pet". That may certainly be what Gnaeus referred to. Thank you.

[Wartex1]

Though as someone who has never played as a pet class, I don't mind the Spiritualist stuff. I mean, it feels a little empty of interesting features, but the archetypes are pretty cool, with my favourite being the Scourge (which I've never seen anyone talk about) because of it being able to force lots of checks to disrupt spells, though it doesn't scale well, so it's strong at low levels and weak at high ones.

[Ellrin]

Kineticist is the PF truenamer. You can plow through needlessly complicated rules and if you dodge all the traps you can make one that doesn't totally suck. But only if you are a glutton for punishment because there's half a dozen ways that fill the niche better, easier. I think of them as a much worse Vizier or Mystic, but first party they could also be a much worse Magus, Alchemist or Sorcerer

I was under the impression that even if you dodged the traps and read the rules a few hundred times until they finally started making the vaguest semblance of sense, the Truenamer still didn't actually work.

[Kurald Galain]

I was under the impression that even if you dodged the traps and read the rules a few hundred times until they finally started making the vaguest semblance of sense, the Truenamer still didn't actually work.

As I recall, it works reasonably well (though obviously not top-tier) as long as you either play at low to moderate levels, or allow the truenamer to buy or craft an item that gives him +10 to +30 on one particular skill check. That's because the main issue is that his truenaming skill scales slower than its DC (so at low level this isn't a problem, at high level you need a bonus from somewhere). So for all its flaws, TN is still better than kinny.

[Milo v3]

So for all its flaws, TN is still better than kinny.
Except kineticist isn't broken at any point, and doesn't require optimisation to function at the level expected by the math of the game... so not really? Kineticist is near impossible to optimise past it's floor and is more complex than it needs to be, but it works.

[Kurald Galain]

Except
That's precisely our point Milo, the kinny requires optimisation to function at the level expected by the math of the game. That's a problem. In addition, it is near impossible to optimise past it's floor and is more complex than it needs to be. That's why it doesn't work.

[Milo v3]

That's precisely our point Milo, the kinny requires optimisation to function at the level expected by the math of the game. That's a problem. In addition, it is near impossible to optimise past it's floor and is more complex than it needs to be. That's why it doesn't work.
I think you've misunderstood what floor means in this context. Floor is the minimum performance of the class, floor doesn't equal bad. Kineticist's floor is basically the stats required to function at the level expected by the math of the game, but is near impossible to go beyond that.

It's just most builds of other classes (assuming their made by people with a general level of system proficiency) exceed the amount required to function at their level.

[upho]

Except kineticist isn't broken at any point, and doesn't require optimisation to function at the level expected by the math of the game... so not really? Kineticist is near impossible to optimise past it's floor and is more complex than it needs to be, but it works.This may actually very well be objectively true. So I feel I should clarify the reason I'd might ask a player who suggested to play a kinny to reconsider is simply that the party, as well as the game as a whole, expects PC's which I guess can be best described as "powerful T3". And that is certainly decidedly more powerful than what "is expected by the math of the game" if judging by the very low difficulty level of published APs. (And usually also if judging by the CR system and encounter design guidelines, although I believe these are based on such over-generalized approximations of power they cannot really be used for their stated primary purpose.)

IOW, most of my players would find it quite easy to bring say a barbarian up to that expected power level, but would likely find it very hard to do the same using a vanilla monk or - I guess - kinny.

[Kurald Galain]

I think you've misunderstood what floor means in this context.That's circular reasoning. You define the "floor" as what the class currently does, and from that you conclude that what the class does meets the "floor". While technically true, that statement doesn't really get us anywhere.


So I feel I should clarify the reason I'd might ask a player who suggested to play a kinny to reconsider is simply that the party, as well as the game as a whole, expects PC's which I guess can be best described as "powerful T3". And that is certainly decidedly more powerful than what "is expected by the math of the game" if judging by the very low difficulty level of published APs.
And that hits the nail on the head. You can arbitrarily declare any class to be "good enough for you", but it's more practical to compare a class to other classes (at which point you'll see the kinny is well below most others).

[Milo v3]

That's circular reasoning. You define the "floor" as what the class currently does, and from that you conclude that what the class does meets the "floor". While technically true, that statement doesn't really get us anywhere.
No, I'm not saying the class meets the floor (which I agree would be circular reasoning), a classes floor is completely separate to the math required by the game. I'm saying the class's floor meets the math required by the game. The issue with kineticist is that it cannot go beyond that minimum math, while every single other class in the game can with an "average" level of system comprehension. Every class can eclipse it with some casual optimisation (on that I'm sure we can all agree), but it still functions.

Kineticist sorta like, if you have a PC which allows you to play a game without issues, but you have to turn all the graphics to their lowest. Which I still personally consider better than things like monk and fighter which cannot play the game at all, so you have to open up the chassis and replace it's parts with things from all over the place, even if that frankenPC ends up being able to run the game at mid-graphics. But YMMV on that part.

[CasualViking]

Math-wise, the kineticist is just fine. It outperforms an Alchemist in blasting, with about equivalent defenses. What it lacks is meaningful utility abilities, if you happened to not pick one of the elements with good utility.

[upho]

What do you mean by "math-wise, the kineticist is just fine"? Is that the same thing as what Milo said ("fine vs basic game expectations as defined by APs") or what I would consider fine in my game ("can at least perform roughly on par with a moderately optimized magus/bard/alchemist")?

Whether the kineticist is as good (or maybe even better) than your average alchemist at blasting seems to be pretty irrelevant, since an alchemist's primary strength hardly lies in it's blasting capability (even when looking at most builds highly focused on bombs).

[Kurald Galain]

Math-wise, the kineticist is just fine. It outperforms an Alchemist in blasting, with about equivalent defenses.

Both have comparable damage (1d6 per two levels plus attribute mod) but the alchemist is an area effect by default and gets iteratives, as well as an extra attack from Haste. So alchemist damage > kinny damage.

[Gnaeus]

I think you've misunderstood what floor means in this context. Floor is the minimum performance of the class, floor doesn't equal bad. Kineticist's floor is basically the stats required to function at the level expected by the math of the game, but is near impossible to go beyond that.

It's just most builds of other classes (assuming their made by people with a general level of system proficiency) exceed the amount required to function at their level.

The floor is the low op level of the class, Kenny's floor is a guy whose blasts hit DR, SR, and ER and who knocks himself unconscious trying to use his powers.

The Kenny that is a marginally effective blaster isn't the floor, it's the ceiling.


Both have comparable damage (1d6 per two levels plus attribute mod) but the alchemist is an area effect by default and gets iteratives, as well as an extra attack from Haste. So alchemist damage > kinny damage.

Well, either one can get iteratives with the right power selection (although I think kenny's costs burn, like everything marginally useful (Edit. looked it up, 2 burn and it limits damage)). The real advantage comes when you look at like "Tanglefoot Bomb" vs. the Kineticist entangle power. Entangling bomb boosts every bomb you ever throw from that moment on with no added cost, and hits everyone in the blast radius. The entangling blast enhancement is restricted to a few kineticists. It costs 2 burn, so you can't use it regularly without exposing yourself to pain. You can't use it regularly on your strongest (compound) blasts until high level. If its inconvenient an opponent can kill the entangled part with a standard. Thats a song that repeats a lot through those class comparisons.

[CasualViking]

Both have comparable damage (1d6 per two levels plus attribute mod) but the alchemist is an area effect by default and gets iteratives, as well as an extra attack from Haste. So alchemist damage > kinny damage.

Oh come on. That's not an actual comparison. From level 5 to 7, the Kineticist has a clear edge in damage from Empowered Blast. The Alchemist can buff a bit, Kenny has his Overflow bonus, but the Alchemist has nothing on Empowered Blast.

Then Fast Bombs arrive and the Alchemist gets a nice nova ability. But, you know, the kineticist can make the same hasted & iterative full-damage touch attacks. In melee, though, but he can do it with a reach weapon and get opportunity attacks. Bombs are short ranged ranged attacks. Unlike the Alchie, he can do it all day long, and bomb shortage is a genuine thing, especially with Fast Bombs. A 12- or even 8-round workday is hard for the novaing alchemist. And the kineticist has the ability to nova as well, with Empowered Composite Kinetic Whip.

Don't get me wrong, Kenny is at best low tier 3 (with Aether, you start every encounter flying and invisible and you can TK literal tons of stuff) or tier 4 depending on your choice of elements, but it doesn't actually fail at doing damage.

[Kurald Galain]

From level 5 to 7, the Kineticist has a clear edge in damage from Empowered Blast.
So you're saying that from level 1 to 4, and levels 8 and up, the kinny does not have an edge. That would be 85% of the game. It strikes me as a fair conclusion that the alchemist's damage is better.


Unlike the Alchie, he can do it all day long
No, he can't. As Gnaeus points out, kinny's special abilities all cost burn (such as empower), and alchie has more bombs per day than kinny has burn points to spend.

[Gnaeus]

Don't get me wrong, Kenny is at best low tier 3 (with Aether, you start every encounter flying and invisible and you can TK literal tons of stuff) or tier 4 depending on your choice of elements, but it doesn't actually fail at doing damage.

At level 8 you can start every encounter flying and invisible. Except that self telekinesis is an awful form of flight that only works in straight lines and needs your standard every round or you fall. Greater self telekinesis sucks only slightly less, you get it at level 10, and it requires self telekinesis as a prerequisite for worse than a fly spell. By that point, the alchemist has had superior winged ex flight for 4 levels, and he only used one power on it. That's not a selling point for Kenny. And that's the non-trap element

[Gnaeus]

Ah, yes, the huge difference in how the spiritualist uses his pet may of course cause grief, at least in terms of "not meeting player expectations from a pet". That may certainly be what Gnaeus referred to. Thank you.

We (forumites) tend to cast shade on options that are strictly weaker than other options, even if the other options are OP. How many threads do you see advocating "trap" (by which I mean, clearly weaker) archetypes of T1-2 classes. I like my spiritualist so far. I'm just saying "it's a weaker version of class X" won't get much forum love.

[Albertus Magus]

....
No, he can't. As Gnaeus points out, kinny's special abilities all cost burn (such as empower), and alchie has more bombs per day than kinny has burn points to spend.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the kineticist's mechanics and playstyle.

A normal kineticist prepares himself for the day by improving his elemental defense with X burn, where X = the number necessary to maximize his elemental overflow bonuses/associated stat bonuses (so 1 burn at level 3-5, 3 burn at 6-10, 5 burn at 11-15, 7 burn at 16-20).

He may choose to spend some of these "pre-buff" burn points in defensive/utility talents such as Aerial Evasion(1 burn, gain evasion), Kinetic Form(1-2 burn, grow large/huge at will, shrink to normal size at will), or Shimmering Mirage(1 burn, Gain concealment(20% misschance)).


During the day, a typical kineticist either uses a "standard attack", which is a basic kinetic blast that deals the listed damage(+overflow bonuses), possibly with some "free" form/substance infusions whose cost is paid by his infusion specialization (-1 total burn cost at 5th, -2 at 8th, -3 at 11th, -4 at 14th, -5 at 17th, -6 at 20th).

Or he uses a move action to "gather power", which enables him to avoid taking burn when using metakinesis(empower) at 5th level, or when he wants to use more form/substance infusions than his infusion specialization covers.

Starting at 11th level, he can use "gather power" to pay for composite blasts, doubling his kinetic blast's damage.



In rare moments of crisis, when a kineticist absolutely needs to deal as much damage as possible NOW, he may choose to actually "suffer burn" and deal high amounts of burst damage.

[CasualViking]

So you're saying that from level 1 to 4, and levels 8 and up, the kinny does not have an edge. That would be 85% of the game. It strikes me as a fair conclusion that the alchemist's damage is better.


No, he can't. As Gnaeus points out, kinny's special abilities all cost burn (such as empower), and alchie has more bombs per day than kinny has burn points to spend.

Sooo.... you don't actually understand how the class works. Got it. EDIT: I didn't mean to be so dismissive. You clearly know your stuff on most topics, so I was surprised at how wrong you were this time around.

[Kurald Galain]

In rare moments of crisis, when a kineticist absolutely needs to deal as much damage as possible NOW, he may choose to actually "suffer burn" and deal high amounts of burst damage.

By which we mean "regular damage for other damaging classes".

Seriously, the earlier argument was that the kinny is good because at THREE levels out of twenty, AND if the party doesn't use Haste, AND for about five rounds per day total, he can deal more damage than an alchemist (and the alchemist is by no means the most damaging class in the game). That's a pretty ridiculous argument if you think about it.

[CasualViking]

By which we mean "regular damage for other damaging classes".

Seriously, the earlier argument was that the kinny is good because at THREE levels out of twenty, AND if the party doesn't use Haste, AND for about five rounds per day total, he can deal more damage than an alchemist (and the alchemist is by no means the most damaging class in the game). That's a pretty ridiculous argument if you think about it.

But when you choose to misconstrue what I'm saying, you're just being a petulant ass. Levels 5 to 7 are the "Alchemist? not even a contest" levels. At levels 3-4 and 8-whenever, they're more or less even on blasting; alchemist is ahead on some aspects, kineticist on others.

[Gnaeus]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the kineticist's mechanics and playstyle.

A normal kineticist prepares himself for the day by improving his elemental defense with X burn, where X = the number necessary to maximize his elemental overflow bonuses/associated stat bonuses (so 1 burn at level 3-5, 3 burn at 6-10, 5 burn at 11-15, 7 burn at 16-20).

He may choose to spend some of these "pre-buff" burn points in defensive/utility talents such as Aerial Evasion(1 burn, gain evasion), Kinetic Form(1-2 burn, grow large/huge at will, shrink to normal size at will), or Shimmering Mirage(1 burn, Gain concealment(20% misschance)).


During the day, a typical kineticist either uses a "standard attack", which is a basic kinetic blast that deals the listed damage(+overflow bonuses), possibly with some "free" form/substance infusions whose cost is paid by his infusion specialization (-1 total burn cost at 5th, -2 at 8th, -3 at 11th, -4 at 14th, -5 at 17th, -6 at 20th).

Or he uses a move action to "gather power", which enables him to avoid taking burn when using metakinesis(empower) at 5th level, or when he wants to use more form/substance infusions than his infusion specialization covers.

Starting at 11th level, he can use "gather power" to pay for composite blasts, doubling his kinetic blast's damage.

In rare moments of crisis, when a kineticist absolutely needs to deal as much damage as possible NOW, he may choose to actually "suffer burn" and deal high amounts of burst damage.

Let me suggest that if your argument is that forum regulars who have read a guide can't figure out what you seem to regard as optimal kineticist behavior, it might be less an issue of "you are playing it wrong" than it is of "these rules are counter-intuitive and hard to use effectively". I would not regard Kurald (or myself) as a bad optimizer or person with difficulty mastering complex rules systems.

I think gather power, aside from being needlessly punitive to a weak class in general, is a real vulnerability in play. At least when my sorcerer gets shot while summoning, he doesn't explode for extra damage.

So, a "normal" kineticist 16 starts his day by eating 112 unhealable non-lethal? That's hideous. I mean 18 at level 6 is pretty awful, and likely kicks Kenny down to the lowest HP in the game below sorcerer wizard and witch, and 55 at 11 is worse. But it is just plain crazy to me that you consider that playstyle the obvious default for kineticist.

[Serafina]

There's no risk of "exploding" from Gather Power unless an enemy uses a readied attack, or you actually gather as a full-round action. Because you gather as a move, then launch as a standard, it happens right after each other without the enemy being able to act (unless they use readied attacks).

That being said, Kineticist damage isn't that complicated and basically comes in several stages.
You basically get progression from several factors:
+D6 from extra levels
higher Elemental Overflow, with a respectable +2/3 levels
Empower Metakinesis, then Composite Blasts, then Empowered Composite Blasts, then Quickened Blasts
Kineticists Diadems

First, you have:
1D6+(1D6/2 levels after 1st) - so indeed basically the same as Alchemist bombs.
You also add your Constitution-modifier - Bombs add Int instead, so close enough. Except Energy blasts only add half that
Physical Blasts also add +1 to each D6, which is a bit more than what Alchemists get (but they're of course not touch attacks).

From 3rd level onward, you add +2 per three levels from Elemental Overflow.
A 3rd-level physical blast with a Con of 18 would thus do 2D6+2+4+2 damage, for an average of 15.
A 3rd-level energy blast would do 2D6+2+2 for an average of 11.

At 5th level, you can combine Gather Power and Empower Metakinesis. This empowers your blasts, effectively being 50% bonus damage.
A 5th-level physical blast with now-Con 20 would thus do 1.5 x (3D6+3+5+2), for an average of 30.75 damage.
A 5th-level energy blast would do 1.5 x (3D6+5+2), for an average of 26.25 damage.

At 11th level, you can use Supercharge and Gather Power to freely use Composite Blasts. However, for now you drop the Empower. A Composite Blast has
2D6+(2D6/2 levels after 1st) - so double an alchemists bomb.
You still add Con-modifiers too, but half for energy blasts.
You still add +1 per D6, but since you now have twice the amount of D6 it's more.

Such a 11th-level Blast (now with a Con of 24, in part thanks to overflow, and a lesser Diadem) now does
physical: 12D6+1D8+12+7+6 damage, for an average of 71.5
energy: 13D6+3+6, for an average of 54.5

At 16th level, you reduce the cost of Composite Blasts to 1 and thus can use Supercharge to Empower it. This is again 50% extra damage.
A 16th-level physical blast would thus do 1.5x(16D6+2D8+16+10+10) for an average of 101.
A 16th-level energy blast would thus do 1.5x(18D6+5+10) for an average of 78.

And finally, at 19th level, you can use Metakinetic Mastery to, instead of using an empowered composite blast, use two normal blasts via quicken.
With 19th-level physical blasts, this would be 2x(10D6+3D8+10+12+12) for an average of 138 (empowered composite would be 114)
With 19th-level energy blasts, this would be 2x(13D6+6+12) for an average of 127 (empowered composite would be 95.5)

It's been extensively calculated that yes, this is less damage than a blaster-caster does, and less than what a dedicated archer does, at least optimized ones.

But let's not malign the damage too much, it's perfectly usable damage as long as the game isn't optimized for high damage numbers. If you want high damage, don't play a Kineticist - they only do solid moderate damage. Unless you go for a optimized Kinetic Blade build, in which case it can indeed get pretty high - but that just shows that Blasts suffer very highly from not having any of the good optimization options that both casters and weapon attackers have nowadays.

[Albertus Magus]

A kineticist at level 6 who takes 3 burn gains +2 con from elemental overflow, "losing" 18 HP and gaining 6.
A kineticist at level 11 who takes 5 burn gains +4 con from elemental overflow, "losing" 55 HP and gaining 22.
A kineticist at level 16 who takes 7 burn gains +6 con from elemental overflow, "losing" 112 HP and gaining 48.

If the elemental defense is Force Ward(Temporary HP that slowly regenerate) or Flesh of Stone(DR X/adamantine, where X=1/2 level; +1 per burn, up to your level), the "HP loss" is further mitigated.

If all else fails, if you're damaged enough to be KO'd, you're likely merely unconscious where other characters are bleeding or dead.

With CON as primary stat, a kineticist should have comparable, if not more HP than a barbarian.

[Gnaeus]

There's no risk of "exploding" from Gather Power unless an enemy uses a readied attack, or you actually gather as a full-round action. Because you gather as a move, then launch as a standard, it happens right after each other without the enemy being able to act (unless they use readied attacks).

Unless they use readied attacks. Or have something like invisibility and can AOO you. So, basically, its totally workable as long as your DM doesn't use tactics.


That being said, Kineticist damage isn't that complicated and basically comes in several stages.It's been extensively calculated that yes, this is less damage than a blaster-caster does, and less than what a dedicated archer does, at least optimized ones.

But let's not malign the damage too much, it's perfectly usable damage as long as the game isn't optimized for high damage numbers. If you want high damage, don't play a Kineticist - they only do solid moderate damage. Unless you go for a optimized Kinetic Blade build, in which case it can indeed get pretty high - but that just shows that Blasts suffer very highly from not having any of the good optimization options that both casters and weapon attackers have nowadays.

OMG This!!! Your optimized ranger does more damage. He has a companion. Actual spells (although like kenny, way behind in level). And he doesn't need to worry about accidentally blasting himself if someone interrupts his full attack.


A kineticist who takes 7 burn at level 16 takes 112 unhealable nonlethal damage and gains +6 con from elemental overflow, gaining 48 HP. So he has effectively "lost" only 64 HP; if his elemental defense is either DR(Earth) or Temporary HP(Aether), this "loss" is mitigated further.

With CON as primary stat, a kineticist should have comparable, if not more HP than a barbarian at that point.

Barbarian also has con as a primary stat (Con/Str, compared with con/dex). He also gets +6 con from rage. And +2 hp per level innately. And DR. No comparison at all. Looking at bloodrager instead, which is close to T3, just makes this embarassing.

Ranger gets +1 hp per level innately. Is probably Dex/Con, compared with Kenny who is Dex/con or con/dex. If kenny takes 2 burn, Ranger is clearly better. Ranger also gets a pet who can tank for him in a pinch. Improved evasion.

Alchemist is the T3 "better than kenny in every way" class. His mutagen gives him +6 con, +4 dex at that level, all day, without having to take damage for it to happen. Solid NA bonus from mutagen and a selection of infusions for his choice of defenses which he can change daily like a wizard.

So, the optimization ceiling is worse than simple tier 4 muggles. The optimization floor is "I picked the wrong element so I suck forever" or just "I mistakenly blasted myself unconscious and got ganked on the ground."

[Albertus Magus]

Kineticists can also get companions via (Greater) Elemental Whispers (->(Improved) Familiars, with Small Aether Elemental being the best option)), and they can summon Elementals via Spark of Life, create animated objects with Aether Puppet/Kinetic Crafting, and animate dead via Kinetic Invocation.

Infinite disposable summons provide utility, especially if they are available from level 2(Elemental Whispers).

Their defensive abilities are not to be underestimated - Permanent Earth Glide, At-will invisibility are two particularly prominent ones.

Air Kineticists can see around corners with (Greater) Windsight, and Shoot around corners with Snaking Infusion; Void Kineticists can pull of Darkness/See in Darkness tricks, and the recently released melee form infusions from Psychic Anthology effectively grant Whirlwind attack for free to the Kineticist.

Offensively, an Air/Water/Fire Kineticist has at-will Control Weather at level 16, allowing him to devastate cities at will.

[Gnaeus]

Kineticists can also get companions via (Greater) Elemental Whispers (->(Improved) Familiars, with Small Aether Elemental being the best option)), and they can summon Elementals via Spark of Life, create animated objects with Aether Puppet/Kinetic Crafting, and animate dead via Kinetic Invocation.

Infinite disposable summons provide utility, especially if they are available from level 2(Elemental Whispers).

Their defensive abilities are not to be underestimated - Permanent Earth Glide, At-will invisibility are two particularly prominent ones.

Air Kineticists can see around corners with (Greater) Windsight, and Shoot around corners with Snaking Infusion; Void Kineticists can pull of Darkness/See in Darkness tricks, and the recently released melee form infusions from Psychic Anthology effectively grant Whirlwind attack for free to the Kineticist.

And if kineticist was warlock, and I could actually pick the most useful tricks from an open list, and the decent ones didn't have stupid prereqs and usually burn, some of those arguments might hold water. Like, your defensive options aren't even available on the same guy. You are still spending powers for stuff other, better classes get inately or with low level spell effects levels earlier.


Offensively, an Air/Water/Fire Kineticist has at-will Control Weather at level 16, allowing him to devastate cities at will.

So trap option kennys, after sucking for 15 levels, get a nuke. A nuke druids got a couple levels before. Did I mention Truenamer? Because this is actively worse than truenamer. At least Gate has utility.

[upho]

We (forumites) tend to cast shade on options that are strictly weaker than other options, even if the other options are OP. How many threads do you see advocating "trap" (by which I mean, clearly weaker) archetypes of T1-2 classes.I see. Well, you certainly do have a point. Though IME this doesn't seem to be the general case when it comes to T3+ classes anymore, at least not when it comes to PF players. Meaning I see a lot of praise for less powerful alternatives to T1-2 classes (like Spheres of Power), explicitly because they're weaker. That said, my impression may very well be a case of confirmation bias, since I often follow and partake in discussions on Path of War and other DSP material (which has an explicit T3 target) which of course attracts forumites with a somewhat different attitude.


I like my spiritualist so far. I'm just saying "it's a weaker version of class X" won't get much forum love.I find the lack of forum love a bit sad. Having read up on the spiritualist more thoroughly, I also find it an interesting and well balanced class which appears to be unique enough that it really shouldn't be compared to the summoner. And personally, I'd definitely be more interested in playing a spiritualist than one of the full casters (dunno about the summoner, I absolutely love the "build your own monster"-concept and flavor but hate the mechanically OP stuff and the self-nerfing it tends to require).

[upho]

So trap option kennys, after sucking for 15 levels, get a nuke. A nuke druids got a couple levels before. Did I mention Truenamer? Because this is actively worse than truenamer. At least Gate has utility.This is very much my impression as well. It appears to me the desinger(s) of the kenny basically took the 3.5 warlock concept, nerfed it heavily and introduced some very convoluted and highly counter-intuitive mechanics, and then slapped on whatever abilities that appeared to fit with the flavor of each elemental focus while largely ignoring mechanical suitability or internal balance.

The mentioned at-will control weather is a good example of this IMO. I mean, aside from the mentioned awful prerequisite 15 levels of sucky-ness, it seems to have been "balanced" around a blanket assumption that zero burn at-will abilities are always much stronger than their counterparts limited to uses/day (like the control weather spell). Which is just hilarious, considering control weather has an average duration of 26 hours and can be changed at-will while active. The same erroneous assumption seems to have driven up the overly harsh prerequisite of several other zero burn abilities. This strikes me as pretty absurd when considering that Paizo sells adventures which AFAIK never forces the party into having more than 5 combat encounters per day, aside from the fact that the burn mechanic still puts a daily limit on your combat effectiveness.

Or am I missing something here?

.......

So far, I'm having a really hard time finding a good reason for not giving players interested in a warlock-y class the avowed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?509440-Forrestfire-Studios-Playtest-The-Avowed-a-3pp-warlock-with-a-psychic-bent), instead of leaving them with the kenny. Even today when you're actually still limited to the play test version of the avowed.

[Psyren]

I find the lack of forum love a bit sad. Having read up on the spiritualist more thoroughly, I also find it an interesting and well balanced class which appears to be unique enough that it really shouldn't be compared to the summoner. And personally, I'd definitely be more interested in playing a spiritualist than one of the full casters (dunno about the summoner, I absolutely love the "build your own monster"-concept and flavor but hate the mechanically OP stuff and the self-nerfing it tends to require).

Unchained Summoner is a fine alternative, just stick with that. I do like the Spiritualist though, particularly the benefits you get while your phantom isn't out (the skill bonuses, protection against mind-affecting, then the Bonded Manifestation stuff later.) It makes them quite useful in social situations and combat alike.

[upho]

Unchained Summoner is a fine alternative, just stick with that.Yeah, this is also what I generally would recommend people outside my own group, at least if they don't feel comfortable with house rules. But I think the changes introduced by the un-summoner didn't go far enough in terms of reducing power, while the IMO completely unnecessary and arbitrary eidolon restrictions also took away a large part of what I love the most about the class. Me wants my PC to have their own highly unique special snowflake weirdo Monsters Inc. companion, goddamit! :smallmad:

So if I personally had to choose between the two versions in a RAW game, I'd go for the original in most cases, despite the additional self-nerfing I'd expect this choice to require. But of course I prefer my nerfed version of the original summoner.


I do like the Spiritualist though, particularly the benefits you get while your phantom isn't out (the skill bonuses, protection against mind-affecting, then the Bonded Manifestation stuff later.) It makes them quite useful in social situations and combat alike.Exactly my thoughts. AFAICT, they're truly versatile but not even remotely close to as low floor/high ceiling as full casters, aside from being effective without having to step all over other classes' toes or having a ton of win-buttons or trap options. Yet another example of a very well designed Paizo 6/9 caster IMO.

Speaking of, 6/9 caster classes really seems to be Paizo's thing. Nearly all of them have unusually interesting and unique flavor IMO, and their mechanics are generally well matched and balanced (with the exception of the summoner). I think their only potential weak spot is that their quite complex signature mechanics, many build options and versatility make them less suitable for inexperienced players, but that's largely just a reflection of their strengths rather than a design flaw. In my mind, they're head and shoulders above most of the CRB's 3.5 legacy classes, and more impressive than the other classes designed by Paizo.

[Wartex1]

So what are everyone's preferences for classes (not necessarily based on power)? Do people love Occultist and Mesmerist and hate the Medium and Kineticist?

[Milo v3]

So what are everyone's preferences for classes (not necessarily based on power)? Do people love Occultist and Mesmerist and hate the Medium and Kineticist?

I like Kineticist (though I tweak the hell out of it in my own games), Mesmerist, and Psychic (as a person raised by cultists I rather like it's disciplines). I love the idea of the occultist, but I always feel like it's missing something (and I am still annoyed about how useless the conjuration base ability is).

[Kurald Galain]

So what are everyone's preferences for classes (not necessarily based on power)? Do people love Occultist and Mesmerist and hate the Medium and Kineticist?

In my area, the only occult class that sees a lot of play is the Mesmerist. This is in part because they really stand out as different in gameplay, and because they have a lot of archetypes that take it in different directions.

And, lots of people love the flavor of the kinny, try it for one or two sessions, and then abandon it for something more effective.

The psychic, occultist, and spiritualist are not so much disliked as seen as just another version of the wizard, magus, and summoner; so people end up playing those classes instead. None of these three have sufficiently distinct flavor or mechanics to appeal to most people here. As for the medium, people end up playing multiple characters instead.

[Krazzman]

So what are everyone's preferences for classes (not necessarily based on power)? Do people love Occultist and Mesmerist and hate the Medium and Kineticist?

I like the Mesmerist as I think the Stare mechanics and turning your friends into "Trap Cards" is really awesome.
The Kineticist has cool flavour and tries to replicate my most beloved class from 3.5... but I will never play it except in a Gestalt you are a Kineticist, choose another half type of game...

The Occultist and Psychic (at least the Amnesiac Archetype) are both too complicated for my taste.

Can't say anything about Spiritualist or Medium as I haven't looked at them thoroughly. I like the fluff/concept of Medium though as I really liked Shaman King... but they are another 4/9 "caster" and they don't even have full BaB as every other 4/9 caster has (Ranger, Paladin, Bloodrager...)

[Corlindale]

I love the idea of the Medium and I'd like to make it work some day, but design-wise it suffers badly. Spirit Dancer archetype makes it better, but introduces another set of problems.

I love everything about the Occultist. Such a versatile class.

Mesmerist seems interesting and I like the Kineticist too. The last two haven't really caught my eye so much.

[Psyren]

I like Kineticist (though I tweak the hell out of it in my own games), Mesmerist, and Psychic (as a person raised by cultists I rather like it's disciplines). I love the idea of the occultist, but I always feel like it's missing something (and I am still annoyed about how useless the conjuration base ability is).

I like all of them except Kineticist, where I love the concept (moderately-powerful at-will class with a soft daily cap) but feel they really dropped the ball in execution. Of the classes, Medium is probably my favorite due to being "Binder-lite," and unlike most pacting classes, actually working well at low levels.

[Tuvarkz]

So what are everyone's preferences for classes (not necessarily based on power)? Do people love Occultist and Mesmerist and hate the Medium and Kineticist?

I'm really liking the Occultist. Tbh, wouldn't touch vanilla kineticist with a 10 foot pole, but DSP's Gambler archetype for it is pretty darn fun to tinker with.

[Mehangel]

So what are everyone's preferences for classes (not necessarily based on power)? Do people love Occultist and Mesmerist and hate the Medium and Kineticist?

Honestly, I have no issue with any of the occult classes except for the Kineticist. I reluctantly tried playing one and ended up being the most useless character in the party. That is not to say I couldn't contribute, but I felt that I was holding the party back and would've been better off playing literally any other class. Hell playing as an expert (NPC class) would've been a better choice.

[Eldonauran]

I like Kineticist (though I tweak the hell out of it in my own games), Mesmerist, and Psychic (as a person raised by cultists I rather like it's disciplines). I love the idea of the occultist, but I always feel like it's missing something (and I am still annoyed about how useless the conjuration base ability is).

Check out the Haunt Collector (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/occult-adventures/occult-classes/occultist/archetypes/paizo-llc-occultist-archetypes/haunt-collector-occultist-archetype/) archetype for the Occultist. You can swap out the resonant power of ANY implement (starting at level 2) with the Seance ability of a Medium spirit. I took the Champion in place of the Conjuration resonance power (+2 non-spell damage) to make my Abjuration/Transmutation/Conjuration Occultist better in combat. Plus, you get to drop a swift action to get the Spirit bonus for a round, and for the Champion, that is to hit, damage, and strength skills/checks.

[Florian]

What do people think about classes other than the Kineticist (both functionally enjoyability and meta/optimization standpoints)?

I know Medium is kind of divisive from what I've heard.

By now, I count the Occultist amongst my most favorite classes to play. It´s actually the anti-specialist, as you can take on more and more roles when gaining new implements, focus powers and more spell lists become available. The class plays a bit like a Harry Dresden, in that you have you stand-by powers to rely on and try to approach every encounter as flexible as possible.
That is a bit hard to optimize beyond a certain point w/o losing exactly that flexibility, but pretty worth it.
Don´t play one in a heavy op environment, tho.

[Starbuck_II]

If you can't afford raise dead, Medium lets you come back to life by taking a level in it (*Reanimated archetype).

Remember, you get EXP from, an encounter whether or not you die. Just like traps give XP whether or not you disable them.