Does Extra Wild Talent need a buff?

[Aar60493]

Hey, I am playing a kineticist in one of my games, and I saw that Extra Wild Talent was super weak compared to every other extra feat I have ever seen. This really hurts the class considering that it is one of the main feats you would want, and it seems unnecessarily overbalanced, considering every other extra feat I have seen only requires that you have the class feature, while extra wild talent requires level 6 (which is very significant as this is a level 1 campaign) and makes it so the extra talent you do get is 2 levels below you level. My GM is more flavor and story inclined, and is fine with most mechanical things brought up, so I wanted to bring it up here to get a second opinion on if it is too weak and needs a buff or not.

[vasilidor]

playing a kineticist... bleh. I say you need all the help you can get.

[Psyren]

Maybe just do one thread for all your kineticist-related questions?

Unfortunately you're not going to find a lot of fans of the class here, I would recommend the Paizo boards instead as more folks over there were willing to give it a shot.

[Aar60493]

Maybe just do one thread for all your kineticist-related questions?

Unfortunately you're not going to find a lot of fans of the class here, I would recommend the Paizo boards instead as more folks over there were willing to give it a shot.

Ahhh, thank you. Though I think I am just going to talk to my GM about just getting all the buffs I talked about since kineticist is apparently ****. I just picked it because it looked really novel since it was a pseudo caster with con as its main stat, and a bit similar to alchemist with it having blasts for bombs, infusions for discoveries, and wild talents for spells.

[Psyren]

It's a fantastic concept - an at-will elementalist warlock that casts from Con and can reduce its HP with unavoidable damage to get more powerful effects on par with spells. But it all just... falls apart once you get to the actual execution of that.

[Aar60493]

It's a fantastic concept - an at-will elementalist warlock that casts from Con and can reduce its HP with unavoidable damage to get more powerful effects on par with spells. But it all just... falls apart once you get to the actual execution of that.

I know right! I have been asking forums for ways to buff the class and working with my GM to get it to a good power level. I think I am doing a good job so far. Just the fact that I was able to get all of knights of porphrya 1-4 really helps since it gives 4 books of supplements for kineticist. It really helps with its diversity and the magic items for kineticist will be really helpful later on too when I get money. Heck there is a feat where I can accept 2 extra burn per day, which from what the forums seem to be say, is a lot better than I gave it creit for at first glance. Hopefully the books plus the buffs I am able to get by will be enough. I have already been able to get a huge buff for the elemental avatar archetype from the book past where instead of the drawback of delayed infusions and wild talents and lose my infusion at level 1, I take 1 extra point of nonlethal per burn. Only going through the game will tell if it is enough or not.

[Rynjin]

Extra Wild Talent is one of those things everybody in the playtest begged Mark to change but he really stuck to his guns on the whole "Extra X Talents are no-brainers for every class that gets them, I don't want that for Kineticist", ignoring the fact that A.) That ship has sailed and B.) There's almost NOTHING interesting a Kineticist can spend their frickin' Feats on anyway.

I think most GMs would be fine with buffing it, if only because I'm pretty sure most people would assume that is how it already works and wouldn't even know otherwise until it's mentioned.

[Eldonauran]

Well, I remove the level requirement for taking the feat and the reduced effective level for the powers selected. That is about all I do to help out the kineticist, who already excel at dealing damage. It might not be the best or most optimized, but they are effective regardless. For those FEW times that they run up against something that resists their elemental damage types, I merely raise an eyebrow and ask what else did they invest their resources in to account for those very circumstances. If they've managed to hyper focus on one trick, they have just learned a very valuable lesson. Yes, its fun to be amazing at one thing, and then its not fun when you can't use that thing. "Would you like to retrain a few things?" is my next question.

Kineticists are one of the few classes that do not need feats to function, aside from Precise shot if they go that route. Spend them wisely.

[Kurald Galain]

Kineticists are one of the few classes that do not need feats to function, aside from Precise shot if they go that route. Spend them wisely.
That's nice in theory. Once you do the math on that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23550495&postcount=114), it turns out a kinny deals less damage than a fighter (and everybody knows fighters aren't great). Kinnies certainly don't "excel" at anything and can't be "amazing at one thing" either.

Kinnies do need feats (and items) to function at the same level as other classes, the problem is that those feats and items don't actually exist.

And yeah, to answer the OP, Extra Wild Talent needs a buff. Not that that saves the kinny, but every little bit helps.

[Kris Moonhand]

As a big fan of Kineticist (it's my second-favorite vanilla class), Extra Wild Talent absolutely should have the "-4 level" thing removed. Make it work like every other Extra X feat.

Also, here's what I did for Expanded Metakinesis, since that one is mostly garbage as well.


Expanded Metakinesis

Prerequisites: Kinetic blast class feature, metakinesis class feature.

Benefit: Select a metamagic feat. You must meet the prerequisites for this feat, using your kineticist level as your caster level. You may not select Elemental Spell. You may use the selected metamagic feat to alter your kinetic blast by accepting burn. A metamagic feat whose spell level increase is +0 or +1 costs 1 burn. A metamagic feat whose spell level increase is +2 or +3 costs 2 burn and cannot be selected until 9th level. A metamagic feat whose spell level increase is +4 or +5 costs 3 burn and cannot be selected until 13th level.

A metamagic feat must be able to affect a spell of the same kind as the blast you are using. For instance, you cannot use Widen Spell on a single-target blast, nor can you use Steam Spell on a blast which does not deal fire damage. Certain feats, such as Threnodic Spell or Solid Shadows, do not work at all with blasts, because they alter spells that are mind-affecting or illusions.

Special: This feat can be chosen multiple times. Each time, you select a different metamagic feat. When you receive the metakinetic master class feature, you may select one of the metamagic feats granted by this feat instead of only choosing from those listed in the normal metakinesis list.

[KillianHawkeye]

I would love to help answer this question, but my Kineticist just got high enough level to get her first EWT this past level up, so I haven't had much time to evaluate it yet.

I mean, it's obvious that you should want more Wild Talents. Because let's be honest, you don't get enough Wild Talents without it. And EWT lets you get ones that you passed up on earlier. If you think about it in that way, there's nothing wrong with it at all.

Is it the strongest feat in existence? Obviously not, but nobody is playing a Kineticist to be the strongest character ever. It's a really fun class with mediocre power level. EWT simply increases your versatility, whether that's by giving you some extra blasting options or getting you some new utility powers, and for that it seems to do its job.

[Kurald Galain]

I mean, it's obvious that you should want more Wild Talents. Because let's be honest, you don't get enough Wild Talents without it. And EWT lets you get ones that you passed up on earlier. If you think about it in that way, there's nothing wrong with it at all.
The catch is that often you want abilities X and Y on the same build, and often X and Y belong to two different elements.

For most classes, if you get an ability at level four and want two of those, you can manage that at level four or five. For the kinny, you have to be level nine instead. And aside from that, most talents kinny can get at level four are the equivalent of first-level spells. So at level nine, you're supposed to spend a feat to obtain a first-level spell, and how is this exciting again?

Most campaigns end around level 9 or 10; so your capstone ability is going to be something other classes can do right from the beginning. Yeah, there's something wrong with that.

[Eldonauran]

That's nice in theory. Once you do the math on that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23550495&postcount=114), it turns out a kinny deals less damage than a fighter (and everybody knows fighters aren't great). Kinnies certainly don't "excel" at anything and can't be "amazing at one thing" either.I've seen several perform perfectly fine in combat at higher levels, and often do outperform the fighter that needs a full attack action to do their best damage (acknowledging that hyper-specialized fighters and other melee oriented characters can do a lot of damage in a single hit, but I dont really feel I have to account for every fringe concept to make a point). The problem is that I don't compare the classes to each other to determine if they 'excel' or not. I compare what they can do with what needs to be done to get the job done. One class doing MORE damage on paper or in theory does not lesson my opinion of what another class can do.

I am aware that this puts me somewhat at odds with some of the online community. I don't really care all that much about being a minority opinion. I'll just restate my opinion that kineticists do JUST fine provided they don't fall into the trap of hyper-specializing.

[Kurald Galain]

The problem is that I don't compare the classes to each other to determine if they 'excel' or not. I compare what they can do with what needs to be done to get the job done.
Sure. It's just that by that metric, every single class is AMAZING! and EXCELLENT! That's an entirely valid opinion, it's just not a particularly useful metric.

[Eldonauran]

Sure. It's just that by that metric, every single class is AMAZING! and EXCELLENT! That's an entirely valid opinion, it's just not a particularly useful metric.
If you want to be hyperbolic about it and exaggerate the statement beyond the simple, general comment it was meant to be, that is entirely your own choice. We all know some classes do not fulfill the basic roles they were designed to fill without a certain level of optimization. The measure that I use to determine whether or not a class is functional and adequate simply does not depend on comparing it to other classes. It focuses more on what needs to be done in a certain role and then on how well the class does it. If one class is better than another at certain things, then the players will use it more often if they want to be more powerful or more skilled, and is all about their preferences. Preferences are entirely subjective.

In my experience, subjective experiences & preferences do not make for a good metric for anything outside of general trends and personal tastes that change over time. So, yes, a kineticist is not the best. Yes, some classes perform the role better. No, that does not mean the kineticist needs to be buffed or changed, aside from PERSONAL taste in playstyle. [insert fallacy about rule zero fixing the issue and counter argument] Rule zero helps with personal taste. Let's leave it at that.

[GrayDeath]

Now while I agree that that was slightly hyperbole, your method simply ill never produce a valid result regarding of "is a class GOOD".

It will only ever determine if its adequate, or at the very best what needs to be done to make it so.

If that is all you want from "judging" any of the classes, fine, but to determine if a class is Good, bad, something in between, or truly "excels" in something one has to compare it to other classes who attempt to do the same.

Mind, I also do not agree to the often repeated forum wisdom of comparing everything to THE BEST in a specific niche. That truly serves no really useful purpose in almost all games. ^^

Now, the Kineticist, if built highly optimized, is a good Damage Dealer. Not a very good one, but good.
Sadly thats about the only thing he can be made to be good at, so he falls into the classic Fighter Trap, which given its great flavour is a shame I ahve been bemoaning since it first came out (after all, who doesnt want to play the Avatar ^^).

[Eldonauran]

Now while I agree that that was slightly hyperbole, your method simply ill never produce a valid result regarding of "is a class GOOD".

It will only ever determine if its adequate, or at the very best what needs tob e done to make it so.
Adequacy is all the metric was designed to measure. Once it is determined, it is up to the game master and the player to make correct judgements about feats and other ability selections to increase the performance of a class. That also depends highly on the preference of the game master in running their game at whatever power level they chose. Many people like higher powered games, and I do as well. I just try to keep in mind that the games that I play in are not representative of what the game was initially designed for (and that was one in which the CR system is not a joke).


If that is all you want from "judging" any of the classes, fine, but to determine of a class is Good, bad, something in between, or truly "excels" in something one has to compare it to other classes who attempt to do the same.
It is all how you choose to define 'good' or 'excel', or rather, how you apply those words. If you choose to use them when comparing two different classes, you have started a competition between the two. As Pathfinder is a team-oriented game, where the team wins, I do not find such competitions between classes beneficial. You might hold another opinion.


Now, the Kineticist, if built highly optimized, is a good Damage Dealer. Not a very good one, but good.
Sadly thats about the only thing he can be made to be good at, so he falls into the classic Fighter Trap, which given its great flavour is a shame I ahve been bemoaning since it first came out (after all, who doesnt want to paly the Vatar ^^).
Once you are able to do a baseline amount of damage, anything over that is overkill. I simply choose to diversify abilities, rather than hyperfocus, because hitting hard means nothing when you cant use your ability or it gets nullified some other way. I am not saying high damage is playing wrong. It is a high risk and high reward playstyle. I simply caution to play smart.

[Rynjin]

In my experience, subjective experiences & preferences do not make for a good metric for anything outside of general trends and personal tastes that change over time. So, yes, a kineticist is not the best. Yes, some classes perform the role better. No, that does not mean the kineticist needs to be buffed or changed

???

If something is outperformed in its only reason for existing by another class, yes that absolutely means it needs to be buffed. That is pretty much the only time you can point to a perfectly objective measurement for a class needing to be buffed (the other is when the class fails to meet even basic benchmarks of performance the game expects...which Kineticist actually does miss if you play an Energy Blast user like Pyrokineticist).

[Eldonauran]

???

If something is outperformed in its only reason for existing by another class, yes that absolutely means it needs to be buffed. That is pretty much the only time you can point to a perfectly objective measurement for a class needing to be buffed (the other is when the class fails to meet even basic benchmarks of performance the game expects...which Kineticist actually does miss if you play an Energy Blast user like Pyrokineticist).
I simply disagree. As to why: I do not subscribe to the ideology that all things needs to be equal. This might offend some people's sense of fairness or fair play, but I don't formulate my beliefs around solely those two values. And I don't apologize for it.

[Kurald Galain]

Once you are able to do a baseline amount of damage, anything over that is overkill.
That is definitely true.

And it is also something you can calculate. While the definition of "baseline" is indeed subjective, I think you'll find that a "baseline" that the kinny meets, every other class will also meet.


I simply choose to diversify abilities, rather than hyperfocus,
It strikes me that kinny does not have the option to "hyperfocus" because other than Fire's Fury (which is a trap), there's not a whole lot you can do to increase its damage. So you don't really choose to diversify, it's just something the class tells you to (of course, it does heavily restrict diversifying beyond your primary element, so that's another choice you don't have).

[Rynjin]

I simply disagree. As to why: I do not subscribe to the ideology that all things needs to be equal. This might offend some people's sense of fairness or fair play, but I don't formulate my beliefs around solely those two values. And I don't apologize for it.

I've never understood this viewpoint. Having options be equally viable can only ever be a good thing for a game's health, while at best inequality is a neutral factor.

Balancing classes increases good, while imbalance at best does not increase bad. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Eldonauran]

That is definitely true.

And it is also something you can calculate. While the definition of "baseline" is indeed subjective, I think you'll find that a "baseline" that the kinny meets, every other class will also meet.Every other class meeting that baseline is, to me, a good thing. A number of other classes require more than their class abilities alone to meet that thresh hold, having to devote resources into feats and magic items. A kineticist also benefits from these as well, but as they say, high floor and low ceiling.


It strikes me that kinny does not have the option to "hyperfocus" because other than Fire's Fury (which is a trap), there's not a whole lot you can do to increase its damage. So you don't really choose to diversify, it's just something the class tells you to (of course, it does heavily restrict diversifying beyond your primary element, so that's another choice you don't have).When I speak of hyperfocusing, I do not limit such terminology to simply class abilities. One example that I term 'hyperfocusing' is devoting a large portion of your feats to purely combat, and towards one particular aspect of it. Many people, I have seen, express a bit of shock when I bring that up, because they devote all of their feats to combat. And it is perfectly fine, but you are playing a very different kind of game than I am, and what the CR system expects. Yes, the CR system is flawed, but it is functional. Nothing is perfect.


I've never understood this viewpoint. Having options be equally viable can only ever be a good thing for a game's health, while at best inequality is a neutral factor.

Balancing classes increases good, while imbalance at best does not increase bad. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I can't go into too much detail as my ideology on the subject transcends the game realm and bleeds into actual world view and religion, but to be somewhat concise on it: I believe that humanity thrives on a certain amount of inequality and seeks to use such things to our advantages. Bad options exist so that better options can be identified, chosen, and modeled after. Too much 'equality' kills the human spirit to thrive, rise, and push beyond our boundaries. When your actions can no longer influence how well you do in life, and be compared to others who do not have the same drive, the human spirit dies little by little.

[StSword]

Might I suggest taking a look at the Legendary Kineticist (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/legendary-kineticist) rewrite from Legendary Games?

It's a well regarded fix for kineticists from what I've gathered.

[upho]

Every other class meeting that baseline is, to me, a good thing. A number of other classes require more than their class abilities alone to meet that thresh hold, having to devote resources into feats and magic items. A kineticist also benefits from these as well, but as they say, high floor and low ceiling.The kinny's low combat op ceiling is actually a very small part of the problem IMO. Yes, it's more restricted than other classes to games at a power level which doesn't exceed that of published APs, but that's probably more of a good thing for games at that power level.

No, the most serious problem is that the class is also extremely limited in terms of the maximum possible mechanical variation between viable builds, in it's utility/out-of-combat abilities, general versatility and overall adventuring usefulness. IOW, it doesn't really get to do much with the resources its not required to spend on options to achieve minimum viability.

To give you a comparison, imagine if the combat op ceiling of say the alchemist was lowered to that of the kinny. Despite the fact that this alchemist would likely need to spend more than the kinny on stuff for minimum combat viability, in comparison it would still allow for a vastly greater maximum possible mechanical variation between viable builds, offer stronger/more varied utility/out-of-combat abilities, superior general versatility and significantly greater overall adventuring usefulness.

The kinny is limited in so many more dimensions than just maximum combat effectiveness. Which makes for boring, repetitive combat mechanics and little else. It's like an archer ranger with its spell list and skill points cut in half or a TWF fighter limited to the CRB.


When I speak of hyperfocusing, I do not limit such terminology to simply class abilities. One example that I term 'hyperfocusing' is devoting a large portion of your feats to purely combat, and towards one particular aspect of it. Many people, I have seen, express a bit of shock when I bring that up, because they devote all of their feats to combat. And it is perfectly fine, but you are playing a very different kind of game than I am, and what the CR system expects. Yes, the CR system is flawed, but it is functional. Nothing is perfect.I suggest you take a look at the "iconics (http://www.pathfindercommunity.net/iconic-characters)". How much resources do you find them dedicating to non-combat stuff? (FYI, decidedly less than the "average" PC does in my games, despite being vastly superior in combat.)

Here are the feats, skills, language and gear sections of Valeros statistics at 12th as an example:

Feats Combat Reflexes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/combat-reflexes-combat), Dodge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dodge-combat---final), Double Slice (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/double-slice-combat---final), Greater Weapon Focus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-weapon-focus-combat---final) (longsword (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/longsword)), Greater Weapon Specialization (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/greater-weapon-specialization-combat---final) (longsword (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/longsword)), Improved Initiative (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-initiative-combat---final), Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-two-weapon-fighting-combat---final), Toughness (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/toughness---final), Two-Weapon Defense (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/two-weapon-defense-combat---final), Two-Weapon Fighting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/two-weapon-fighting-combat---final), Two-Weapon Rend (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/two-weapon-rend-combat---final), Vital Strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/vital-strike-combat), Weapon Focus (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/weapon-focus-combat---final) (longsword (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/longsword)), Weapon Specialization (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/weapon-specialization-combat---final) (longsword (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/longsword))

Skills Climb (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/climb) +18, Intimidate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/intimidate) +13, Knowledge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/knowledge) (dungeoneering) +12, Ride (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/ride) +17, Swim (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/swim) +18

Languages Common, Goblin
SQ armor training (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter#TOC-Armor-Training-Ex-) 3
Combat Gear necklace of fireballs (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/m-p/necklace-of-fireballs) (type V), potions (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/potions) of cure serious wounds (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/cure-serious-wounds) (2), potion of (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/potions) fly (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fly), potion of (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/potions) heroism (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/heroism), acid flask, alchemist's fire (2), holy water (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services#TOC-Holy-Water); Other Gear +3 light fortification (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-armor#TOC-Fortification) breastplate, +2 keen (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapon-special-abilities/keen) longsword (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/longsword), +2 short sword (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/shortsword), +1 shortbow (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/shortbow) with 20 arrows, masterwork heavy mace, amulet of natural armor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/amulet-of-natural-armor) +2, belt of physical perfection (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/belt-of-physical-perfection) +2, boots of speed (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/boots-of-speed), cloak of resistance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/cloak-of-resistance) +3, ring of protection +2 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rings/ring-of-protection), antitoxin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services#TOC-Antitoxin), backpack, bedroll, crowbar, everburning torch, grappling hook, hemp rope (50 ft.), tankard, trail rations (2), waterskin, 288 gpFind a lot of non-combat stuff in there?

Overall, the CR system simply expects PCs having options chosen primarily on the basis of how cool their names are and how fitting those names seem to be with the character concept, not based primarily on the options' actual mechanical effectiveness or fit to a degree greater than those of Valeros' above. (Except when it doesn't, and instead demands the party has some very specific abilities a rather small proportion of classes gain to have much of a chance. But that's another story.)



I can't go into too much detail as my ideology on the subject transcends the game realm and bleeds into actual world view and religion, but to be somewhat concise on it: I believe that humanity thrives on a certain amount of inequality and seeks to use such things to our advantages.I think you're completely missing the point. And that is that the greater the PC imbalance the more difficult it is for the GM to create challenges which are on the whole fun and engaging for all party members. Don't confuse this with your political/psychological philosophies, they have very little bearing on the topic at hand.

[Eldonauran]

The kinny is limited in so many more dimensions than just maximum combat effectiveness. Which makes for boring, repetitive combat mechanics and little else. It's like an archer ranger with its spell list and skill points cut in half or a TWF fighter limited to the CRB.
Ahh, I think I see the issue. It is "boring and repetitive".


I suggest you take a look at the "iconics (http://www.pathfindercommunity.net/iconic-characters)". How much resources do you find them dedicating to non-combat stuff? (FYI, decidedly less than the "average" PC does in my games, despite being vastly superior in combat.)
***snip***
Find a lot of non-combat stuff in there?
I make no defense for the choices of those that designed the characters or their feat choices. Valeros, for example chose to hyperfocus on the longsword and dual-wielding it. Outside of his niche, he is just a hard to hit archer with poor damage output. Other Iconics (that have levels high enough to get a good feel for their choices), chose to spread out their abilities and give a few a boost.


I think you're completely missing the point. And that is that the greater the PC imbalance the more difficult it is for the GM to create challenges which are on the whole fun and engaging for all party members. Don't confuse this with your political/psychological philosophies, they have very little bearing on the topic at hand.
My philosophy has as much bearing on the issue as with anything else. I merely posted it to help someone else find greater clarity with a viewpoint they stated they did not understand (and it was by no means complete in summary, so try not to form assumptions). I support the GM and the players altering the game a bit to better fit their preferences, and I stated as much earlier. I've made my own alterations to the Extra Wild Talent feat. But outside of that, I find no need to 'buff' any other aspect of the kineticist class. If it is found to be boring or repetitive, it is up to the player to change that through their own resources or play another class.

[Kurald Galain]

In my experience, subjective experiences & preferences do not make for a good metric for anything outside of general trends and personal tastes that change over time.

Yes, that's precisely why we're objecting to you judging the kinny on your subjective experiences & preferences, when there are objective measures on how the class performs. :smallamused:

[Eldonauran]

Yes, that's precisely why we're objecting to you judging the kinny on your subjective experiences & preferences, when there are objective measures on how the class performs. :smallamused:
:smallsigh: We've devolved into pedantic banter now. I've already made my opinion known and given defense of it, even if you want to ignore the metric I use. Ignore it if you want.

[JNAProductions]

:smallsigh: We've devolved into pedantic banter now. I've already made my opinion known and given defense of it, even if you want to ignore the metric I use. Ignore it if you want.

What exactly is your metric? I've joined this thread a little late, and I'm having a bit of trouble finding your post that explains it.

[Eldonauran]

What exactly is your metric? I've joined this thread a little late, and I'm having a bit of trouble finding your post that explains it.
:smallconfused: Post 17 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24247777&postcount=17) is a good place to start if finding it is difficult. But a summary is "Adequacy for the role, not class to class comparison." I am quite finished with the topic however. Have a good day.