Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9773907" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Objectively? Really. That's....interesting. I don't agree with that any more than the previous thing!Every class should get feats specific to it, so the fact that it warrants class-specific feats is not a bad thing. Now, if it is completely incapable of interacting with all or nearly all feats anyone else would use, that would certainly be bad! But I have enough knowledge of PF1e, at least, to say that that isn't going to apply here.Of course, there's a converse to this. Why have we made the space of feats so exclusionary? If feats being inaccessible is a problem, perhaps this is a criticism of feat design, not class design. Design better, more-inclusive feats.This is not objectively terrible. It can be good or bad depending on execution.Then it is a badly-designed class. Interactions should be possible. If it is uniformly terrible at any basic elements of the game, that's a fairly reliable sign of bad game design. You haven't shown that more rules is bad. But roles were bad and horrible and wrong in 4e. Therefore this is has to be a positive, not a negative! Not being told what a class is or does is a good thing. Unless you are saying the opposite? In which case, it should be saying what the Kineticist's role is, just as 4e did, but it does not. So....all this is saying is either "exactly how 5e does it already", or "classes should be designed with roles, and tell the audience what those roles are".</blockquote>

Verification