Larkas's page

I must say that participating in the play test was very informative and somewhat fun. That said, I certainly think it was too short. Seriously, the play test could benefit a lot from being one or two months longer.

Larkas wrote:

Larkas wrote:

2 - It isn't clear if the Arcanist needs to prepare spells every day. The way it stands now, I'd say that the Arcanist only needs to prepare spells when she wants to change her loadout, or to take advantage of new spell slots due to leveling up. That's fine by me, but I'm not sure that's your intent. A simple clarification, saying "The Arcanist must prepare spells every day." or "The Arcanist doesn't need to prepare spells each day. If she doesn't, she can still cast the spells she had prepared beforehand." would be nice.

I believe it is the same as the Sorcerer. Unless you want to change your spells, you only need to recharge your slots per day. (Or to put it simply, your known spells are there, you recharge your used per day every night.) The last sentence you have in quotes is likely the best summation.

I think that's the intent too, but a simple clarification wouldn't hurt.

I'm happy to see that you addressed most of my first point posted here (I would still put metamagic feat in plural, since a spell could conceivably be prepared with more than one applied, but that's fairly minor). The second point, however, could still be cleared up, so I'll repost it:

2 - It isn't clear if the Arcanist needs to prepare spells every day. The way it stands now, I'd say that the Arcanist only needs to prepare spells when she wants to change her loadout, or to take advantage of new spell slots due to leveling up. That's fine by me, but I'm not sure that's your intent. A simple clarification, saying "The Arcanist must prepare spells every day." or "The Arcanist doesn't need to prepare spells each day. If she doesn't, she can still cast the spells she had prepared beforehand." would be nice.

Now this is looking very, VERY interesting! Certainly much better than before!

The simple change in spell slots made the choice between Wizard, Arcanist or Sorcerer very balanced. Each class has its own pros and cons. That's a very good thing.

Furthermore, the exploits sound balanced, flavorful AND useful!

Way to go, team Paizo! Can't wait to playtest it!

Anyways, two things:

1 - "A spell prepared with a metamagic feat cannot be further modified with another metamagic feat (unless she has the metamixing exploit)" would probably read better as "A spell prepared with metamagic feats cannot be further modified with other metamagic feats at the time of casting (unless the Arcanist has the metamixing exploit)", or something to that effect.

2 - It isn't clear if the Arcanist needs to prepare spells every day. The way it stands now, I'd say that the Arcanist only needs to prepare spells when she wants to change her loadout, or to take advantage of new spell slots due to leveling up. That's fine by me, but I'm not sure that's your intent. A simple clarification, saying "The Arcanist must prepare spells every day." or "The Arcanist doesn't need to prepare spells each day. If she doesn't, she can still cast the spells she had prepared beforehand." would be nice.

I'm not sure why it is important how many times you've posted an idea I think has flaws. Do I need to comb through an entire thread to reply to all of your posts at once? Or how about we stick to just replying to what you posted which I quoted and was specifically addressing.

If your post wasn't written to properly express your intended ideas, by all means, elaborate.

First of all, if I said I posted the idea upthread, I probably fleshed it out better then. Second, again, if I said I posted the idea upthread, I was giving you the hint to check it out for yourself. Third, I don't think we should need to keep reposting the same ideas and thoughts all over again and all over the topic. It's both boring and yes, presumptuous. Fourth, if I didn't provide a direct link, it was probably because I couldn't do it at the time due to, I don't know, posting from a crappy cellphone. But if it is so hard to load previous pages and Ctrl+F>Larkas, then here, have a link. Lastly, no, I don't want to convince you of anything. I was just expressing how it could work.

Also, 'presumptuous' isn't the word you are looking for.

Presumptuous was exactly the word I was looking for. Here, have another link.

On topic:

The Arcanist already has far fewer spells prepared per day than a wizard does. The selection is even slimmer than a Sorcerer's list of known spells. Reducing the number of prepared spells is the wrong approach if you are worried about his overall power.

He has slower progression than the wizard too. And less staying power than the Sorcerer. His spells per day totals the least between the three classes. So diminishing his spells per day isn't the right approach either.

All that remains would be the 'other' stuff. So long as the Arcanist 'shtick' is less powerful than school specializations and/or bloodlines, it should all jive in the end. (My worry is that it'll be as good or better than either)

A very valid point, though I'm not sure I agree. It's not that the Arcanist is directly more powerful than the Sorcerer (it really isn't). It's just that the added versatility combined with a Sorcerer-like casting invalidates the Sorcerer as a class choice too many times. Eh, invalidate isn't exactly the word I'm looking for. It's just that... Well, if you're looking only at the spellcasting and comparing to a Sorcerer that's not optimized (say, Human and whatnot), it's kinda hard to justify going Sorcerer instead of Arcanist (I was going to say that it's even harder to justify it in a "core only" game, but hey, the Arcanist is not core, anyways. :D But I know plenty of DMs that disallow alternative FCBs, so there's that) Please, note that this is merely my opinion. You don't have to agree with it. You need to convince the developers of your points, not me. :)

Alternatively, they could make some subtle alterations in the actual spell system they're proposing. But no one seems open to that. Devs included. (Double dipping metamagic, for one)

Now in that I thoroughly agree with you.

Larkas wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

I think having less spells per day would only make the class a pain in the ass to play and barely impact the balance issue.

I respectfully disagree. Back in 3.5, people played as Battle Sorcerers (-1 spell known and spell per day per spell level, + a few bonuses that made it more martially-oriented), still had fun and could still contribute meaningfully to a party. If the Arcanist could prepare one less spell per level, for example, it would still be a "Sorcerer on steroids" (casting-wise) that traded set options for a flexible way to learn and cast spells. I think it would balance out nicely: the choice between playing an Arcanist or a Sorcerer would be less one sided, but at the same time neither class would be invalidated. Meanwhile, I also don't think the balance with the Wizard would be much affected. Besides, it opens up design space for FCBs and archetypes to increase those spells prepared. Of course, this is all IMHO.

One less per spell level and you better be packing metamagic, or you can't cast your spell slots of your highest level when you get em...

Edit/addition: Having to wait until 5th to prep a 2nd level? 7th level to actually prepare a 3rd level spell? And then, just the one? Eh... That is just adding insult to injury, as the arcanist is already a level behind the wizard. You'd have them be effectively 2 behind a wizard and 1 behind the sorcerer? worse yet, they have the slots...but can't cast spells of that level?

Eh, hate to sound presumptuous, but I posted about this up thread. :)

I think having less spells per day would only make the class a pain in the ass to play and barely impact the balance issue.

I respectfully disagree. Back in 3.5, people played as Battle Sorcerers (-1 spell known and spell per day per spell level, + a few bonuses that made it more martially-oriented), still had fun and could still contribute meaningfully to a party. If the Arcanist could prepare one less spell per level, for example, it would still be a "Sorcerer on steroids" (casting-wise) that traded set options for a flexible way to learn and cast spells. I think it would balance out nicely: the choice between playing an Arcanist or a Sorcerer would be less one sided, but at the same time neither class would be invalidated. Meanwhile, I also don't think the balance with the Wizard would be much affected. Besides, it opens up design space for FCBs and archetypes to increase those spells prepared. Of course, this is all IMHO.

Now THAT sounds VERY nice! And exciting! And actually probably different enough to warrant its own class! Thanks for taking the time to craft this! \o/

PS: One question, Jason, if I might be so bold: I don't have a problem with the casting mechanic at all, but the numbers worry me a bit. I won't derail this thread by going in-depth about that, but are you guys looking into that? As in "aware of players' concerns", not necessarily "changing stuff now"? I'm curious, and it would be nice to know that you're open to considering these changes. :)

Larkas wrote:

EDIT: Hmmm... This could be extended to metamagic. You could prepare a metamagicked spell like a Wizard, or spend the resource to apply it on the fly! Ideas, ideas.

The class as it exists does this, by letting you prepare metamagiced spells and also letting you use metamagic on the fly. It doesn't even make you spend resources for it! Though I suppose spending resources to apply metamagic on the fly could be one of the nerfs that so many think this class needs.

Yep, my thoughts exactly! ^_^ I actually posted about this yesterday, but hey, with this monster of a thread, one can't quite expect everyone to read every single reply. :) For the record, here's said post.

Here is where my mind on things is right now

The Wizard does things by the book. He's got the formulas down, he knows how it all works and he understands all the bits and pieces.

The Sorcerer grabs a handful of magic and throws it. It's all instinct and in born talent. His spells are written in his DNA. The Why or how of them doesn't matter he just Knows them. Ask him how he casts spells and he just shrugs and says "well you just kind of grab that twisty bit and go Zam and then Woosh and stuff explodes"

Then there is the Arcanist. The dilettante. He's got a little bit of natural talent and a lot of book learning,but he's also got that hint of instinct that says "why not just give it a twist here" or thinks "what if we just swap that crystal for a couple of glass eyes and a chicken foot, no trust me this'll work"

He's the scruffy kid in chemistry class who gives you a wink and says "want to see something cool?"

...
..
.

MacGuyver

He's the MacGuyver of Wizards

So... The Arcanist should be a master of magic itself, not of the workings of magic or the source of magic, huh? I like this. Extreme care must be taken to not translate this into raw power, I guess, but nifty little abilities can be thought out without increasing the power level. For example: the Arcanist could have an ability that lets him prepare spells with a swapped energy descriptor, such as a Cold Fireball, or an Acid Lightning Bolt. And then you could have an expendable resource to change the energy on the fly. Hmmm... Again, I like this.

EDIT: Hmmm... This could be extended to metamagic. You could prepare a metamagicked spell like a Wizard, or spend the resource to apply it on the fly! Ideas, ideas.

Hey there folks,

There is some great discussion in this thread. We are working on some big solutions for this class that I am hoping to share with all of you later on today. Keep a look out for it later this afternoon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Awesome! And boooo! I hate being at GMT -2. I never know what you guys mean by "later this afternoon". D:

(...)But the hybrid classes in the ACG are very much like one class + other class, and for those it's a reasonable starting point to say, "if it's half based on class X, it could use the class X spell list." That's the starting point (and also means we don't need to create a custom spell list for the playtest). That may change later on, but that's what we're starting with.(...)

Reading this, and knowing what you guys did with the Magus, makes me even more excited about this book! :)

Larkas wrote:

Adam Teles wrote:

You bring up the idea of a Genius, but our geniuses historically aren't people who have something special other than intelligence...

I respectfully disagree. Leonardo Da Vinci was both a genius and a natural talent. If he were a spellcaster (as I'm pretty sure he'd be if magic was real! =D), he would be perfectly represented by the Arcanist, I think. Well, at least the Arcanist idealized by Nildayre. :)

See, my issue here, I think, is that I see that natural talent as being... a giant intelligence score. Leonardo Da Vinci was really smart and also really smart. With Arcanist, we're trying to attribute this "above and beyond" as some sort of innate magic, but because that doesn't have an analog in real life, we've just got someone who's above and beyond by virtue of a high int. Also, I think you could reasonably have a "genius" in any class. One could be a "Genius" wizard, understanding magic better than any other, but one could also be a "Genius" bard who wrote and performed wonderful unique songs (see: Freddy Mercury, Paul McCartney), or even a "Genius" Fighter who knew a great many different combat styles and managed to combine them in ways noone else had.

It sounds like a more appropriate feel would be sort of what the Bard always is: someone who feels the magic and understands it and yes they have to learn and practice but they control it with a mix of both logical understanding and internal feeling.

Hmmmm, differing perceptions, I guess. For me, a Wizard would be an engineer, while a Sorcerer would be an artist. The Arcanist could be the middle point between them, which in my example could be an architect. Being a successful architect requires a good deal of knowledge (hence, intelligence), but also requires a good deal of "feeling" (which, I think, better relates to charisma). Not discounting your point, by the way, just expressing how I feel about it. :)

You bring up the idea of a Genius, but our geniuses historically aren't people who have something special other than intelligence...

I respectfully disagree. Leonardo Da Vinci was both a genius and a natural talent. If he were a spellcaster (as I'm pretty sure he'd be if magic was real! =D), he would be perfectly represented by the Arcanist, I think. Well, at least the Arcanist idealized by Nildayre. :)

@Excaliburproxy & Nildayre: I was about to say that, that one wasn't my idea! ^_^'

The way I see the arcanist class is borne out of comparison to the Wizard and the Sorcerer.

Consider: The wizard studies magic, through the lens of school specializations. Think of it like a college student. You can study communications, psychology, economics, sociology, history or politics. However, at the core of all of these fields you're really trying to understand how humans work, just in different fields.

A sorcerer on the other hand, intuitively understands magic. She can cast spells simply by feeling them out. Think of her like the person at a party who just gets people. She is the natural salesman, or the magnetic politician. They just "get it." Unlike the college guy who studies people through academic fields, she knows the same things intuitively.

The arcanist represents something in-between. The current interpretation I'm seeing from a lot of people is that the arcanist is a "sorcerer who ended up going to school." I think that's cheating the potential of the class.

I prefer to think of the arcanist as a "genius." Schoepenhauer said, "talent hits the target no one else can hit, genius hits the target no one else can see."

Perhaps the arcanist studies magic in a way neither (or any) class has before. They see the next step in understanding how it interacts with the world. This is why they can cast in a semi-spontaneous way. They understand the spell, but more importantly, they understand the way magic works with the universe. They have more refined control over magic than either the sorcerer or the wizard.

If I could influence the class, I would dump the blood pool concept. Instead, I would add a series of abilities surrounding the motif of magical genius. Allow the arcanist more control over the effects of his or her spells. Let them change things like area, range and duration and element type. They already look to be focused on fluidity, embrace it, and separate them thematically from the sorcerer and wizard.

I'll spend some time tday thinking of more specifics on an...

This and Adam Teles' ideas are very good. As it stands, the Arcanist wants to be a middle point between Sorcerer and Wizard. While it succeeds at the spellcasting mechanic (issues I brought up earlier aside), it is, so far, failing a lot at the rest. The mechanics from both parent classes are somewhat incompatible and, IMHO, could be exclusive. PF went through great lengths to differentiate the Sorcerer from the Wizard, greatly succeeding at this because, while the spell list is exactly the same, the features make the classes play very differently from one another. Those features were made to be discrete, and are going to be a pain to simply merge.

I propose taking a step back, ditching the features' purely mechanical merge (at least for now) and embracing a more "conceptual merge". Nildayre's remarks accomplish exactly that. It is a more holistic analysis of the Arcanist itself, as its own character and not merely as a merge from the parent classes. It is by no means simple, but thinking about how a character might live in its world (vs. thinking how a class might play) might give interesting and impacting hints of what it should be able to accomplish with its class features.

IMHO, the Arcanist doesn't _need_ to be a mechanical middle point between the Sorcerer and the Wizard. It can be a conceptual middle point while at the same time forming a mechanical triangle with the other two vertices classes.

I must say that I quite like mostly everything I've seen in ACG so far. However, the Arcanist just seems... Odd. It's not that it's bad or something, it's just that I feel that it needs a more work. A few points, if I might be so bold.

1) The basic fluff

As it stands, the Arcanist is sold as a character that didn't have enough "blood power" to become a Sorcerer. To make up for it, it mimicked the Wizard's path.

I can picture a few Arcanists' backstories being just like that. It is, however, a pity to imply that this is the "standard" way an Arcanist is to be created. An Arcanist could just as well be a person that discovered its blood power, but decided to take a scholarly approach to tapping it. Likewise, it could be a Wizard's apprentice that discovered there was power in his blood, but was too familiar with its master's ways to tap it wildly like a Sorcerer could.

In my humble opinion, a class's background description should be as evocative as possible. A larger "character design space" can lead to funnier, deeper and more varied stories and backstories. The current Arcanist fluff is too narrow, and too shallow. I think that, by showing that the Arcanist can be "a smart guy who wants to tap his blood's power systematically", "a methodical mind who can't wrap his head around the wildness of a Sorcerer's casting", or "a mage-apprentice that uses his latent powers as a shorthanded way to attain what his professors would want him to get with pure wit" just as well as "a person with just a little bit of power in his blood that has to research just how to tap it" will make more people more interested, and even excited, in trying it.

Again IMHO, I think that having a possible "underdog" backstory can be nice. Making it "default", much less so.

2) The spellcasting

Oh, the spellcasting... I have a feeling that this will be a constant topic when talking about this class... Anyways, I like that you guys wanted to find a middle ground between the Sorcerer and the Wizard here. The Wizard may be too fiddly and the Sorcerer, too limited to a few players. Trying to find a balance between the two is a good thing, and I feel there is space for this in the game. Trying to _balance_ that, however, can be quite hard... And I feel that you guys missed the mark a bit. =/ Let me tackle each topic at a time.

2a) Spells per day

I think that this is somewhat spot on. It's a compromise between the Wizard and the Sorcerer. I don't feel it encroaches on their territory, either: the Wizard can find ways around his lower limit, and the Sorcerer is spammy as always.

However, I can't stress this enough: short of bonus spells due to high attributes, I don't think this limit should _ever_ be increased, be it through archetypes, feats or what have you. The effects on the balance against the Wizard or the Sorcerer could be disastrous.

2b) Spells known and prepared

Ooooh, boy... Giving the Arcanist a potential list of spells known of "all of them" and the Sorcerer's base progression of spells known as spells prepared is curbstomping the "poor" Sorcerer... Putting things in perspective, while the Wizard and the Arcanist prepare their spells once every day, the Sorcerer "prepares" its spells _once_ (having the option to swap a "prepared" spell only once every couple of levels). I understand that, in reality, the Sorcerer will have one more spell per level due to bloodlines, but considering that there isn't a bloodline with only stellar spells, the versatility will outshine that small bonus quite handily. Also, "feats and other effects that modify the number of spells known by a spellcaster affect the number of spells the Arcanist can prepare", so that's not even a hard cap.

I can understand the logic behind the current "spells prepared" progression, but I feel it was a bit shortsighted due to how it interacts with the Sorcerer. IMHO, the Arcanist should be able to prepare one less spell of every level than it can now, through all the levels. I do realize this would bring a few levels down to "0". That can be remedied by putting a "1" where a "0" would show, by leaving the "0" there and making the slot open only to metamagic-enhanced spells, by giving a score of "1" only if the character can cast bonus spells per day of that level, or by a combination of the latter two options.

Mind you, the current spell progression might not hugely impact regular, day-to-day gameplay. It makes an incredible difference when deciding what class to play, though. I won't say the current Arcanist obsoletes the Sorcerer completely. It does make it hard to justify playing as one if you want to focus only on the spells, though.

2c) Spell preparation

Eh, I have mixed feelings about the Arcanist needing a spellbook to prepare its spells.

On the one hand, I think that, studious as they are, their magic still stems from their blood. It would make sense for them to be able to commit all their spells (yes, even if it means all of them) to memory, and just meditate to "bring a few to the surface" (i.e.: prepare). Maybe they could need to study, but not necessarily a _spellbook_. Maybe they merely need to study their (or other's) annotations on how magic interacts with their blood (thought that fluff difference might amount to nothing at all mechanic-wise). Besides, the drawback of needing a spellbook (though I think that using that drawback is a very bad thing to pull on your players' Wizards, I won't dwell on it here) is very muted on an Arcanist. It can go for days on end without preparing a single spell: since an Arcanist's prepared spells are not consumed when cast, it doesn't need to change its loadout every sunrise!

On the other hand, this last reasoning is _precisely_ why I feel that the Arcanist is the perfect class to need a spellbook: losing it will severely limit your options, but won't turn you into a glorified Commoner. You can function perfectly as a toned-down Sorcerer!

Hmmm... Maybe Wizards should be eidetic by default and Arcanists should need spellbooks, while the Sorcerer laughs at their needs... Anyways, I digress. :)

Regarding open slots, I feel that Arcanists can be excessively dangerous if they can leave slots open to fill when the need arises. Maybe it's a good idea to force them to prepare all their spells at once?

2d) Metamagic

There is no way around it, IMHO: Arcanists, as they are now, are over the top regarding metamagic. They have what amounts to choosing the best of both worlds here.

Since their casting is closer to the Sorcerer's, why not give them only the Wizard's method of using metamagic? Being able to apply metamagic beforehand is very (VERY) interesting, I don't think they need the option of adding it on the fly too.

2e) Spellcasting stat

I feel that, to be true to the parent classes, spellcasting should be keyed off of both Int and Cha, and keying the spells' DC off of Cha would be a great way to pull that off. Besides, it just makes sense! Think with me for a moment: the Arcanist must study to tap his blood's powers. As such, it makes sense for him to need a high Int to cast high level spells. However, due to the very nature of his magical powers, the Arcanist should need to impose his presence on the universe, "to coax the magical energy out from its regular path", as it were. Hence, to make his spells stronger, he should need a high Charisma! I don't know about you, but I feel this fits perfectly.

Besides, this would have the arguably beneficial side-effect of making the class need more than just one attribute!

3) The "Blood Focus" ability

As it stands, I think that the Blood Focus ability is... Meh, at most. It doesn't further the objective of merging the parent classes at all, it just gives a minute bonus to one side or the other. Besides, getting fatigued if you use it up means that, effectively, you have one less use of the ability per day, on most days.

I suggest this change: the Arcanist's bloodline spells are (always) cast with a +1 bonus to CL and DC. It's simpler, cleaner and doesn't open way to weird interactions between the ability and bloodline powers. Besides, it's evocative, and IMHO, more interesting fluffwise: you focus your study on your blood, the same way a Wizard focuses on its school of choice. It's a "Spell Focus Plus", if only you could buy Spell Focus (bloodline spells), balanced by the fact that it's somewhat limited. (EDIT: or just do this!)

4) The "Scribe Scroll" bonus feat

This one is very, very bland. Besides, even though a scholar, I picture the Arcanist as a "scholar of his own blood". I don't picture them scribing scrolls by default.

I think it wouldn't hurt to give them access to their bloodlines' arcana here. It also makes sense that their access to it should be delayed when compared to a Sorcerer's: they had to research how to tap it.

___________________________________

Whew, that was long-winded! This is pretty much all I've felt and thought when reading the class and making a few mock-up characters. I hope this post can be of use! I think that the class certainly has potential, both mechanics- and fluffwise, but I also think that it needs its rough edges smoothed. As it stands, it is a bit bland, and does cause a few balance concerns.

Regardless, good work so far guys!

Really... Hmm... I have my friends and it has a Small Side Bar at the Bottom of Page 75 dealing with multiple Classes. It basically says you should increase the APL by .5 per additional class.

So a Party of 4 Gestalt-3 Characters would be APL+1.5 instead of APL+1.

The Level-by-Level thing is also mentioned here.

Hmmm, I have nothing like that here. It only talks about challenge rating and how to challenge a party of gestalt characters, and a little bit on PrCs. Nothing on the so-called "tristalt" or "tetratalt" variants. Either your friend has a newer printing, not older, or I have no idea what's going on. My book certainly isn't missing content.

I know that. That is why it shocked me when I noticed it. I only have access to the 2nd Version not the 1st. But the one who originally taught me 3.5/Pathfinder has the 1st Version. This Guy has so many books it is nuts. He has a 20x20 foot office lined with book shelves loaded with RPG Books.

I usually look in the books first and use Links to show others.

What exactly are you looking for? I have the first printing on my lap right now, and the only sidebar on the Gestalt section (pgs 72-76) is the one regarding Fractional Base Bonuses. Everything about Gestalt proper is in the main text, and I don't see anything about more than 2 classes at the same level on a gestalt combination.

I am talking about some of the content for the Gestalt System. Such as the 2 Side-Bars dealing with Increased Numbers of classes (Such as 3 or 4 Classes instead of just 2) & how somethings are handled.

Hmmm, got it, sorry about that, then. Have you looked it up in the book proper? As I understand, most, if not all, the content in sidebars are not OGC, so you simply can't find it in any SRD. Besides, WotC didn't "embed" errata into their books: if something as simple as a spelling error was found, it would be found in all editions. Errata was put exclusively as online PDF addons. They didn't strive, like Paizo does, to correct the book every time it was reprinted.

Nope. It was cut to expand on the Spell Points System.

Wait, are we still talking about the fractional BAB rules here? If so, they were never cut. Just because you can't find them doesn't mean they were gone. It's in Unearthed Arcana, page 73, on a sidebar. They were never OGC, so they were never part of the SRD in any version. Unless you have some weird translated version of UA, it is there.

So, it was in the first print, but it was left out of the later prints? You mean it was ERRATAED OUT?

You're arguing for a RAW that has been errataed out? What is this I don't even

It wasn't. He probably simply couldn't find it in d20srd.org, and didn't know where to find it in Unearthed Arcana proper. I'm guessing the sidebar he's looking for simply isn't OGL. FWIW, I already pointed out where it can be found in my previous post.

Besides, as far as I know (and I may very well be wrong here), WotC never embedded errata in their book's later printings, short of these "Premium Reprints" being released only just now. At most, he got some localized version of the book (I've seen a few books in Portuguese missing pieces, sometime entire pages, of content that could be found in the original, English version).

Furthermore, Unearthed Arcana is a book of house rules. Gestalting is a house rule found there, as is fractional BAB. As a house rule, you may choose to adopt it or not. RAW has no bearing on the subject. If you decided to adopt a house rule, even if an errata said that shouldn't exist (and it doesn't), that's solely your problem, and no one else's. That is to say, there is no problem at all.

@ Azaelas Fayth & soupturtle: soupturtle is right here. Even using fractional BAB, you'd still need 4 levels in a Full BAB class to reach +16 BAB with a 3/4 BAB class. Actually, fractional BAB is irrelevant in this case, as you'll see below.

See, under fractional BAB, a Rogue 10/ Cleric 10 would have +15 BAB under the fractional BAB rules, whereas under the regular rules, it would have +14 BAB. This is because both Rogue and Cleric are "3/4 BAB" classes, that is, they add 3/4 their level to BAB. Hence, (10x3/4)+(10x3/4) = 7,5+7,5 = 15.

It's also important to note that, in case you have a fractional BAB score (9,5 for Wizard 19, for example), you keep it fractional. You only round it down, as normal, when you're adding up the BAB to an attack roll, since a fractional roll would make no sense.

It gets more complex when you have classes with different progressions in the same build. Just group the classes in "Poor", "Medium" and "Good" groups when adding things up.

"Poor" classes advance BAB by 1/2 per level; "Medium", by 3/4; "Good", by 1.

A Fighter 6/ Cleric 5/Wizard 4/ Rogue 3/ Sorcerer 2 would be Good 6/ Medium 8/ Poor 6: (6x1)+(8x3/4)+(6x1/2) = 6+6+3 = 15 BAB vs. 14 BAB under regular rules.

Now, lets see your Rogue 19/ Fighter 1:

(19x3/4)+(1x1) = 14,25+1 = 15,25

As I said before, you round it down, hence BAB 15, sames as with Rogue 20. This is the same for R 18/F 2 and R 17/ F 3:

(18x3/4)+(2x1) = 13,5+2 = 15,5

(17x3/4)+(3x1) = 12,75+3 = 15,75

The breaking point is at Rogue 16/ Fighter 4:

(16x3/4)+(4x1) = 12+4 = 16

That is, the same as if you hadn't been using fractional BAB at all. This variant rule is interesting because it makes multiclassing hurt your BAB sensibly less, but is only really relevant if you intend to take several 3/4 or 1/2 classes!

In case you're interested in the rationale behind this, you can find it in the sidebar on Unearthed Arcana's page 73.

EDIT: To make clear as to why this alternative rule is so great for multiclassing: instead of a Rogue 16/ Fighter 4 build, consider a Rogue 1/ Monk 15/ Fighter 4 build. Now, Monk and Rogue are both "3/4 BAB" classes. Like the above build, they take 16 levels in the build. However, unlike the aforementioned build (and a Monk 16/ Fighter 4 build, for example, not to mention a Rogue 4/ Monk 12/ Fighter 4!), this one gets to level 20 with just 15 BAB under regular rules, and as such, with one attack less than the other builds. Why is that? Because you're rounding down the classes BAB before adding them up. Fractional BAB fixes that, bringing it up to par to its sister builds. It is quite a benign little rule change, to the point of being almost a given at any 3.5 table, and any PF table I DM.

Magus// Rogue seems like a fun one. Specifically, Myrmidarch Magus 20// Fighter 9/ Rogue 9/ Arcane Archer 2! If you can apply 3.5's ACF to PF classes, then a Myrmidarch Magus 20// Sneak Attack Fighter 17/ Arcane Archer 3 can work!

Optimization-wise, Spellsword is pretty much a 1-level long PrC in 3.5, used merely to fill up a level in Gish builds. It has too many lost caster levels for any "serious" build to consider. Unless you plan to go around that in the conversion, I wouldn't bother with it.

Unless, of course, you intend to do so merely for the flavor. I'd argue that Eldritch Knight and Magus are pretty much that, but hey, if you like it, why not?

I have a friend in our current game who has a Myrmidarch/Scout(converted from 3.5) It's sort of like the scout skirmish from the rogue but gets the 10ft skirmish starting at 1st level. She's stopped at 5th level for the scout and I think is going to play up the Magus (the group is about 11th level now. So she will be more magus for the rest of the game. So far, she has been a very effective archer.

Interesting! I was actually considering a Magus chassis for an Arcane Archer because I remember that, back in 3.5, I wanted to make a Scout/Duskblade/Arcane Archer, but unfortunately it wouldn't work: there isn't a multiclass feat for Scout/Duskblade, and back then AA didn't advance spell levels!

Your dragon example doesn't seem to do anything that you couldn't have done with a spell in the first place, unless you're thinking of some awesome self-centered area spell that I'm not aware of. Also, that example makes it all about imbue arrow again, so if that's what makes the railgun awesome, what's the difference with the rocket again?

Then again, what can't you solve with spells, anyways? If you think that way, there isn't much incentive to play anything other than a caster. Besides, the Railgun is a mundane character with just a sprinkle of caster, the point is that he can do more varied stuff than "I attack it with my arrows". You won't be advancing your base class features, true, but you're not losing BAB, and can net some unique features along the way.

On a totally unrelated note, I found it very funny that Arcane Archer could be considered "bad", when it got so absurdly better since 3.5. A matter of perspective, eh? =D

Thank you, Quintin! I'll be sure to check that out, and add it to my list!

And I see what you mean. Hmmm... It's not that the other abilities aren't useful, it's simply that the best one is the 2nd level one, right?

At least Myrmidarch has SOME synergy with Arcane Archer. I wouldn't just go melee up to level 8 and suddenly turn ranged from then on. I don't see why it has diminished spellcasting, reminds me of Battle Sorcerer from 3.5, but it works. Thanks for showing me that guys!

fighter 1 wizard 5 eldritch knight 4 arcane archer 10 might be a better option if you want arcane archer 10.

8th level spells, BAB +17. It will cost you one feat but I think the enhanced casting is worth it.

Totally worth it, actually. Thanks for this! I guess this might be the way to go. A pity, were it not for just a few quirks, a Magus archer would be AWESOME. =/

Hello there guys! I've been throwing around the idea of playing an Arcane Archer, and I'm not quite sure on how to best do this.

I guess that a more traditional build would be Fighter 4/ Wizard 4/ Arcane Archer 10/ Wizard +2. You'd end up with BAB +17, 7th level spells and everything else you'd expect from the build.

However, I've been wondering if I could come up with something better using Magus. By going Magus 8/ Arcane Archer 10/ Magus +2, I'd end up with the same BAB +17 and 6th level spells.

Now, the problem is that Magus doesn't really offer anything to ranged combat short of ranged spells, so the character would only really take to the bow at level 9. The build wouldn't flow very well. It would be better able to cast spells armored, even though they don't have "discounted" spells like the bard (this isn't really an issue, though).

Do you guys have any advice regarding this? I don't care much for uber optmization (though I'm not against it either!), but I'm sure there must be some way to do it better than this. For now, all I can think of is getting an Elvencraft Composite Longbow ported from 3.5 so I can at least use the same weapon both for melee and ranged combat. Am I missing something? Any archetype I should be aware of? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

@Aratrok: Alright! I'm very happy with what I see now, and convinced that the rule doesn't need any changing at all. Thank you very much for the enlightening point of view, Aratrok!

So you think a rogue should have to invest two of his five feats on his way to level 10 to be a competent tumbler? Seems a pretty absurd argument to me. Rogues have few feats and need every one of them to be competent in combat (which is why he wants tumble in the first place).

Actually, Aratrok's build was less demanding fear-wise, and ended with the same final bonus. Skill Focus (acrobatics) and you're pretty much set. Heck, with a +10 Acrobatics item, you arguably don't even need that.

Side question: could you reliably tumble against a CR 20 Gold Dragon (CMD = 53) with no or minimal feat investment? I'm really new on optimizing for PFRPG, so I can't really gauge that.

Anyways, I'm still a little worried about all the touch AC stacking on CMD. It's not very difficult to shut down even a mildly optimized character built for tumbling using those kinds of bonuses.

@Aratrok: You know what? You make some VERY good points. For some reason, I was thinking (not really thinking, more like feeling) that taking maximum ranks in Acrobatics would be somewhat optimized towards those ends. It's not even close. If you want to be an agile skirmisher, invest on it! What you say makes perfect sense. And you can certainly play around things so you don't even need to use up a feat or buy magic items to be competent about it (though not both at the same time =D). And I only noticed later that, indeed, the T-Rex is pretty much a worst case scenario. Heck, a CR 15 Adult Gold Dragon has CMD 40.

Still, we have the minor problem of adding anything that adds to touch AC to CMD also (circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses). That can be pretty brutal. Any insight on that?

@Valantrix1: Point taken. But please note that I only used the previously presented rogue and ran with it :)

Thank you for the new replies, people!

@Komoda: What you're saying is mostly correct. When you compare a character based on classes to another, then things are more or less OK. (Just to be clear, this house rule is targeting difficulty just as much as fluff, so there's that.) But consider this instead:

Let's assume a level 10 rogue vs. CR 9 Tyrannosaurus.
Rogue - Dex +3, Acrobatics 13 (1/lvl=10+3 class bonus=13) = 16
Tyranossaurus - Target CMD = 39

Rogue now has to roll 23 or higher = NO chance of success.

Same stats with new rules:
Tyranossaurus - Total Reflex +12, base 11, Target Roll = 23

Rogue has to roll 7 or higher = 70% chance of success

As you can see, we're comparing a CR 9 monster to a 10 HD character. Still, it has no chance of succeeding on doing something that might as well be the basis of his character, that is, moving around in melee range without getting hit (or else he will be seeing the grave pretty fast...). The problem is that while CR = HD for PC-like characters, the same isn't true for monsters. That Tyranossaurus is CR 9, but has 18 HD. As you can imagine, things get out of control really fast (specially for "weaker" types, like Animals), and a simple monster can shut down a character without even being built for it. I can understand your reasoning, but I prefer the maneuver being 100% accurate against something and mildly difficult against other things than being mildly difficult against something and just plain impossible against other things. At least, it seems more fun to the players. Besides, you can always build something to shutdown a tumbler when you feel it's right :) Still, it might be TOO easy, so adding BAB to the mix might indeed be a good one, though it is increasing the rule's complexity.

@ZZTRaider & Lord Foul II: Exactly, this is more to enable a typical fantastic archetype than anything else, while the way it is today it is mostly impossible to do that with any good degree of success =/ Besides, this is simply to negate attacks of opportunity, it is, at most, increasing survivability, not increasing damage or anything.

However, like you said it makes more rolling. That tends to slow down the action a bit. I kind of like it as it is.

IMHO, a little more rolling is worth it to rehabilitate the archetypical agile skirmisher hero. But your preferences have merits, and I can totally understand them.

As a house rule you could make the DC 11+Reflex, instead of an opposed roll.

Now that is a GREAT idea! It solves the problem at hand AND the introduced extra rolling problem quite elegantly, since it adds the Reflex modifier to what would be the average roll in such a save! Great one, Majuba, thank you very much! I think I'll round the average down just to keep things simple, though (stupid, I know, but it is easier to remember 10 than 11; I wonder if it has anything to do with the base formula for AC?).

Instead of an opposed check, I would just make it a flat DC. 10 + the opponent's BAB + the opponent's total Reflex bonus. And of course, if you attempt to tumble through their space, the DC increases by 5. This DC increases by 2 for each additional opponent avoided in 1 round (as per the normal rules).

As a special bonus, I would rule that you also gain a +4 bonus on Acrobatics checks to tumble if you are smaller than your opponent and a –4 penalty on Acrobatics checks to tumble if you are larger than your target.

That works too! I'm not sure I'm too fond of the idea of adding BAB to the mix, since the base Reflex save also has a progression, even if slower. But it does make sense! And the bonuses and penalties you mentioned are great ideas too. Thanks for the input, Sellsword!

So, one of the rules changes in Pathfinder that always baffled me the most was rolling Acrobatics against an opponents CMD in order to move without causing Attacks of Opportunity. Now, I understand that rolling against a flat DC 15, like it was in 3.5, is way too easy, to the point of being pointless to roll at all after a few levels.

However, CMD is not a solid choice to be rolling against. Too many things add to CMD. It isn't only about BAB, Strength and Dexterity, it also about size modifier and anything that adds to touch AC. Not only is that mechanically difficult to succeed, it makes no sense fluff-wise: I can see Dexterity helping you react faster against a creature that is trying to avoid your attacks, but Strength? BAB? SIZE? If anything, size should be a NEGATIVE modifier here, not a positive one.

So, I've been thinking: Reflex already is the measure of how quickly a creature can react to anything, so why not make that an opposed check? It adds a bit of dice rolling, sure, but not a lot, and it enables some more combat options that were rendered virtually useless with the change. Plus, it is just a more logical approach to the problem at hand.

What do you guys think? Is that a good change?