|
I hope that helps clear up my position. Like, honestly, I feel misunderstood 'roundabouts here.
I understand your position just fine, and from a pretty basic point I don't really disagree with it. (Although I feel you are underestimating the swinginess in the dice when it comes to saves against some of those. That's a fairly sidebar point, however.) The issue is, though, that those option already exist in the game. We've got wizards, sorcerers, witches, clerics, and druids already running around, and we're about to add shamans to the mix as well, even beyond the arcanist. So saying "casters break Pathfinder" is, well, at best very very old news. It's certainly not, in any particularly meaningful fashion, helping with the playtest of the new classes. Do you see the issue there?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that helps clear up my position. Like, honestly, I feel misunderstood 'roundabouts here.I understand your position just fine, and from a pretty basic point I don't really disagree with it. (Although I feel you are underestimating the swinginess in the dice when it comes to saves against some of those. That's a fairly sidebar point, however.) The issue is, though, that those option already exist in the game. We've got wizards, sorcerers, witches, clerics, and druids already running around, and we're about to add shamans to the mix as well, even beyond the arcanist. So saying "casters break Pathfinder" is, well, at best very very old news. It's certainly not, in any particularly meaningful fashion, helping with the playtest of the new classes. Do you see the issue there?
Certainly, and I'm not going to be continuing in the vein of "Nerf please," because I know that's already going to be a lost cause. But I feel it's important to deal in the class's capabilities when we start trying to test and balance Exploits/Whatever They End Up Called, since designer input is indicating that the spellcasting is not likely to change. Y'know?
Plus I just plain dislike the "wizards are weak at low levels" statement. Yes, they're not as powerful but they're not weak and the propagation of that falsehood annoys me to no end.
My biggest concern right now is the existence of exploits that may as well be class features because if you don't take them you're wrong aspect. I'm talking specifically about Consume Items (which I do think should be a feature) and spell tinkerer (which I don't). And to a lesser extent dimensional slide. So, without feats, that's your first third and fifth exploits. That leaves two exploits to customize. For me, one will always be counter spell, and I imagine people will try and pick up one of the blasts for flare or taste. Then you're into greater exploits.
I'd like to see consume items become a class feature, spell tinkerer split up into 2 abilities perhaps, and more ways to recharge the reservoir at low levels.
PS I assume extra exploit as a feat would help alleviate some of this.
So, can I have one of my True Dragon NPCs have his racial CL be in this rather than sorcerer?
So, can I have one of my True Dragon NPCs have his racial CL be in this rather than sorcerer?
By the rules? No, for the same reason you can't replace it with Wizard casting.
Since it's an NPC though, go right ahead. If your players get curious, say it's a homebrew template you added to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Full casters are 'broken' because they have the unrivaled ability to fundamentally alter how the game is played. It can happen on purpose, and it can happen on accident, but however it happens there's always the chance that having someone with 9th-level casting in the party is going to change the tone and even genre of the story being told.
This is a GM/playstyle issue. Even at level 20, I find that skills are the main source of utility in 3E/Pathfinder. A spellcaster can turn a situation on it's head, but without knowing what he is doing - information typically provided by skills - this is just pointless confusion.
It is also very much an issue of magic items. In a low-items game, casters will dominate because they are the only ones with access to the supernatural. In a high-budget game, many spells just turn into lesser version (particularly shorter-lasting) of a magic item.
You say later in this post that it is hard to surprise a high-level caster. In broad terms perhaps, but on specifics, it is quite easy. There simply are no divination that give detailed information on encounters. Scrying gives a short-duration snapshot and often yields nothing more than "a guard on patrol". And even if the scrying does give information, it is often noticed, which loses some of the element of surprise. The higher level spells are generally wider in scope but less in detail.
If a GM lets the caster dominate information-gathering too much, perhaps he is giving the caster too big a time slice. Against a caster who insists on divining everything in detail, I'd feel perfectly fine with saying "You spend time casting X. Make a Spellcraft check to see how well that went" and then not play it out in more detail than giving a hint or two based on the roll.
And for an arcanist, spending many spell slots on divination leaves them with basically nothing for anything else.
Perhaps a better analogy is the architect vs the engineer. The wizard is the architect who studies design and engineering and uses that to create new structures or models that can push the boundaries of what we thought capable.
I guess most of us think the Pathfinder setting is more renaissance than modern. And back then, the sum of all knowledge was such that a single person could have a good sense of most of it. That is why we talk of renaissance men and exalt the great names from this time. Today the sum of all knowledge is such that even a genius can only grasp a little bit of it. Not so in heroic fantasy.
Arcanists are the renaissance men of magic, wizards are the scientists/engineers, and sorcerers the end users or battlefield specialists.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consume Spells tells us that the blast exploits should be worth roughly the same as a 1st level spell. Frankly, they aren't. Magic missile does more damage, doesn't require an attack roll or allow a save; burning hands (never anyone's top of the list for most-powerful 1st level spells) does more damage at any level above 1st and can hit up to 7 targets without requiring an attack roll; shocking grasp does require a melee touch attack, but does far more damage and doesn't allow a save. And I'm not even getting into snowball.
Requiring a touch attack and a save for so little damage and such weak debuffs (dazzled? really?) just makes them not worth the reservoir cost, let alone the action cost.
I would really, really like to advocate just a little bit harder for Consume Items be a core feature that the class is built around. Not everyone plays with magic items, so please don't require them for the class to function.
Dang. I was hoping sorcerers were dead. WotC really screwed them up and Paizo had to be too conservative in the CRB to even think about fixing them.
Me too not mind Sorceror and Rogue become NPC classes. That where shine.
Consume Magical Items is a trap...And this is just for one point.
Yes. Consume should add big flavor, not small point. Different food for power should make different color poop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess most of us think the Pathfinder setting is more renaissance than modern. And back then, the sum of all knowledge was such that a single person could have a good sense of most of it. That is why we talk of renaissance men and exalt the great names from this time. Today the sum of all knowledge is such that even a genius can only grasp a little bit of it. Not so in heroic fantasy.
Arcanists are the renaissance men of magic, wizards are the scientists/engineers, and sorcerers the end users or battlefield specialists.
I think that we keep getting this kind of analogies is a sign that the Arcanist dosent really have his own fluff niche ATM.
But i agree with the other stuff you wrote.
Consume Magical Items is a trap...And this is just for one point.Yes. Consume should add big flavor, not small point. Different food for power should make different color poop.
I thing having 6 Spell levels but then going all in on the other stuff, would be a good thing.
|
|
So, question.
Is the spell slot used to fuel the reserve wiping spells from memory or using one of the daily uses? Niether actually calls it slots; prepared or daily use.
I agree that the item consume needs to be more toward item suppression than the breaking of items. Seems that the current phrasing could be more for an arcane bane class than a caster.
My belief is to have more availble points than the current formula.
|
the exploits fix the main problem I had with the class, that it was too bland,
now the exploits still seem on average weaker than bloodline powers, but the spellcasting is better than a wizard (and as least as good as a sorcerer) so it balances out
I would like to see some that modify spells cast and just more in general, along with archetypes and class related feats but that's something to be fixed when books come out
I hope that helps clear up my position. Like, honestly, I feel misunderstood 'roundabouts here.I understand your position just fine, and from a pretty basic point I don't really disagree with it. (Although I feel you are underestimating the swinginess in the dice when it comes to saves against some of those. That's a fairly sidebar point, however.) The issue is, though, that those option already exist in the game. We've got wizards, sorcerers, witches, clerics, and druids already running around, and we're about to add shamans to the mix as well, even beyond the arcanist. So saying "casters break Pathfinder" is, well, at best very very old news. It's certainly not, in any particularly meaningful fashion, helping with the playtest of the new classes. Do you see the issue there?Certainly, and I'm not going to be continuing in the vein of "Nerf please," because I know that's already going to be a lost cause. But I feel it's important to deal in the class's capabilities when we start trying to test and balance Exploits/Whatever They End Up Called, since designer input is indicating that the spellcasting is not likely to change. Y'know?
Plus I just plain dislike the "wizards are weak at low levels" statement. Yes, they're not as powerful but they're not weak and the propagation of that falsehood annoys me to no end.
They are super weak. They have no armor and like 3 or 4 spells and like 10 or 11 hit points tops. They have very little in the way of offensive options if they have not focused on dexterity to deliver ranged touch spells (which will be even HARDER for the arcanist to do because she will need both int AND charisma if she will be a workable arcane blaster of any kind).
They are weak weak weak weak weak.
The wizard and sorcerer offset this by giving them their little firebolts and buffs or what-have-you from school or bloodline. This gives them something to do while they run for cover against the daggers and arrows searching for their soft unprotected flesh.
Consume Magic Items and the attack exploits are all awful though. That's the vast majority of the 1-10 exploits right there.now the exploits still seem on average weaker than bloodline powersSeriously? I am hoping you mean the Arcana as most of the Bloodline powers are pretty crap with a small number of notable exceptions. Frankly I would take Immediate Action Counterspell over any of them as well as +2 spell DC.This is absolutely, totally, 100% true and I endorse it completely.
Fortunately Potent Magic, Dimensional Slide, Counterspell, Metamixing, Spell Tinker and Metamagic Knowledge nicely fill in all of your available exploits before hitting the Greater ones.
I think the problem is that exploits right now don't give the Arcanist much to do at low levels or much to do in most combats (which they should since they have so few spells per day).
Here is my "fix" (to the extent that you agree with me that the blasts could be more balancing but aren't):
All blasts should come with a "cantrip-ish" version. All of these should do the standard effect (1d4 damage or whatever and any secondary effect plus 1 damage for every two arcanist levels). All off these cantrip-ish attacks come from the same pool of uses equal to 3+cha mod uses a day.
Now here is the real kicker: want the blasts to be saved against with int. BUT, they also get bonus damage from charisma. So the damage from acid ray (or whatever) is 1/2 level d4+(charisma mod) damage.
Then all the upgraded "greater exploit" versions deal 1/2 level d4+(2x charisma mod) damage in addition to the normal effects of that ability.
What do you think?
They are super weak. They have no armor and like 3 or 4 spells and like 10 or 11 hit points tops. They have very little in the way of offensive options if they have not focused on dexterity to deliver ranged touch spells (which will be even HARDER for the arcanist to do because she will need both int AND charisma if she will be a workable arcane blaster of any kind).You realise that the game continues beyond level 1 yes and that even at level 1 arcane spellcasters have access to spells which outright end encounters.
Also no, if you want to be an Arcane Blaster you most certainly wont be wasting your time with pathetic piddly like blast effects. Instead grab some metamagic (intensify, empower, dazing), Magical Lineage, some caster level boosts and go to town.
I AM aware of that, but homie over here is trying to tell me that they are not weak at level 1. And they are weak at level 1. So very very weak. And the arcanist is weaker than the sorceror and the wizard as written now. It is one of many design considerations.
Moreover, I like building blasters even though they are generally weaker. I do it because it is cool, but the arcanist blasting abilities are gimped beyond all recognition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that helps clear up my position. Like, honestly, I feel misunderstood 'roundabouts here.I understand your position just fine, and from a pretty basic point I don't really disagree with it. (Although I feel you are underestimating the swinginess in the dice when it comes to saves against some of those. That's a fairly sidebar point, however.) The issue is, though, that those option already exist in the game. We've got wizards, sorcerers, witches, clerics, and druids already running around, and we're about to add shamans to the mix as well, even beyond the arcanist. So saying "casters break Pathfinder" is, well, at best very very old news. It's certainly not, in any particularly meaningful fashion, helping with the playtest of the new classes. Do you see the issue there?Certainly, and I'm not going to be continuing in the vein of "Nerf please," because I know that's already going to be a lost cause. But I feel it's important to deal in the class's capabilities when we start trying to test and balance Exploits/Whatever They End Up Called, since designer input is indicating that the spellcasting is not likely to change. Y'know?
Plus I just plain dislike the "wizards are weak at low levels" statement. Yes, they're not as powerful but they're not weak and the propagation of that falsehood annoys me to no end.
They are super weak. They have no armor and like 3 or 4 spells and like 10 or 11 hit points tops. They have very little in the way of offensive options if they have not focused on dexterity to deliver ranged touch spells (which will be even HARDER for the arcanist to do because she will need both int AND charisma if she will be a workable arcane blaster of any kind).
They are weak weak weak weak weak.
The wizard and sorcerer offset this by giving them their little firebolts and buffs or what-have-you from school or bloodline. This gives them something to do while they...
Lol go easy on the caffeine mate. I think the point with the arcanist having 3-4 uses of spells like color spray and silent image. Was well made. If one cannot contributet with that then no matter of 1d4+ cha ranger touch attacks is gonna matter.
They are super weak. They have no armor and like 3 or 4 spells and like 10 or 11 hit points tops. They have very little in the way of offensive options if they have not focused on dexterity to deliver ranged touch spells (which will be even HARDER for the arcanist to do because she will need both int AND charisma if she will be a workable arcane blaster of any kind).I hope that helps clear up my position. Like, honestly, I feel misunderstood 'roundabouts here.I understand your position just fine, and from a pretty basic point I don't really disagree with it. (Although I feel you are underestimating the swinginess in the dice when it comes to saves against some of those. That's a fairly sidebar point, however.) The issue is, though, that those option already exist in the game. We've got wizards, sorcerers, witches, clerics, and druids already running around, and we're about to add shamans to the mix as well, even beyond the arcanist. So saying "casters break Pathfinder" is, well, at best very very old news. It's certainly not, in any particularly meaningful fashion, helping with the playtest of the new classes. Do you see the issue there?Certainly, and I'm not going to be continuing in the vein of "Nerf please," because I know that's already going to be a lost cause. But I feel it's important to deal in the class's capabilities when we start trying to test and balance Exploits/Whatever They End Up Called, since designer input is indicating that the spellcasting is not likely to change. Y'know?
Plus I just plain dislike the "wizards are weak at low levels" statement. Yes, they're not as powerful but they're not weak and the propagation of that falsehood annoys me to no end.
Did I reference blasting in my post? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I didn't. Everyone is weak at first level but wizards and sorcerers are better off than a lot of people. Charm, Color Spray, Mage Armor, Hideous Laughter, Burning Hands (for those times when blasting really is the only solution), Protection from Alignment - those are just the core spells, from the main book, that can be the workhorses of your first two levels and help keep you and others safe. Some of them even work out better for Arcanist than for Wizard at this level since he can afford to use them in encounter after encounter, like a sorcerer does.
Low levels are swingy, it's true, but they're swingy for everyone, from Barbarian down the hit dice chart. Blaster-casters suffer the same problems melee does but, hey, I'm not talking about blasting because blasting is always weak.
This kind of thing is why I went through all the fuss and bother of explaining my position in the first place.
...
They are super weak. They have no armor and like 3 or 4 spells and like 10 or 11 hit points tops. They have very little in the way of offensive options if they have not focused on dexterity to deliver ranged touch spells (which will be even HARDER for the arcanist to do because she will need both int AND charisma if she will be a workable arcane blaster of any kind).They are weak weak weak weak weak.
The wizard and sorcerer offset this by giving them their little firebolts and buffs or what-have-you from school or bloodline. This gives
It will help them kill a goblin or two after they manage their save against color spray. Also: it will let me play characters that are not built around save-or-dies (the most game ruining-est of all caster builds)
And I am not your mate, buddy. Speak American. Because America.
*fifty eagles scream in the distance*
Did I reference blasting in my post? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I didn't. Everyone is weak at first level but wizards and sorcerers are better off than a lot of people....They are super weak. They have no armor and like 3 or 4 spells and like 10 or 11 hit points tops. They have very little in the way of offensive options if they have not focused on dexterity to deliver ranged touch spells (which will be even HARDER for the arcanist to do because she will need both int AND charisma if she will be a workable arcane blaster of any kind).I hope that helps clear up my position. Like, honestly, I feel misunderstood 'roundabouts here.I understand your position just fine, and from a pretty basic point I don't really disagree with it. (Although I feel you are underestimating the swinginess in the dice when it comes to saves against some of those. That's a fairly sidebar point, however.) The issue is, though, that those option already exist in the game. We've got wizards, sorcerers, witches, clerics, and druids already running around, and we're about to add shamans to the mix as well, even beyond the arcanist. So saying "casters break Pathfinder" is, well, at best very very old news. It's certainly not, in any particularly meaningful fashion, helping with the playtest of the new classes. Do you see the issue there?Certainly, and I'm not going to be continuing in the vein of "Nerf please," because I know that's already going to be a lost cause. But I feel it's important to deal in the class's capabilities when we start trying to test and balance Exploits/Whatever They End Up Called, since designer input is indicating that the spellcasting is not likely to change. Y'know?
Plus I just plain dislike the "wizards are weak at low levels" statement. Yes, they're not as powerful but they're not weak and the propagation of that falsehood annoys me to no end.
Rogues can wear light armor and will often be dealing sneak attack damage. And if blasting is always weak then why do you want to make it weaker by not even giving arcanists the option?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'll also note that I didn't say that, either. I've made no comment on the blasting Exploits because I'm not sure what I'd suggest to fix or replace them.
The thing about designing a caster is that the spells are supposed to be the star...but a lot of the things I'd propose to augment blasting spells are already in the class! Metamagic boosters, metamagic feats, metamagic cost reduction, that sort of thing helps blasters immensely. And Arcanist already does that! Adding a backup blasting feature could be interesting but then I'm asking myself why Pathfinder doesn't just introduce something similar to the old Reserve feats, which return back to the idea that spells are the star of the class while still being repeatable blasting.
We could always boost the power of the ones available to serve as backups for control casters but that doesn't exactly help out the actual blasters, does it? It's an annoying conundrum...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the blasts is not power, it's to give the characters something to do that is thematically appropriate.
Wizards aren't throwing firebolts because firebolts are powerful--they're throwing firebolts because it feels more wizardy to use a firebolt than a crossbow.
Arcanists pointlessly lack this option. Giving them a worthwhile low level blast will not make them stronger, but it will make them more fun, because shooting arcane energy is more fun than shooting a crossbow for an arcane casting class.
I agree that save or lose spells exist as early as 1st level, but:
1) Not everyone wants to use them
2) They can run out pretty fast
3) Having other options makes you more conservative with your more limited resources. If my only choice is Color Spray or crossbow, I'm going to color spray. If my choice is Color Spray or shoot a bolt of ice at the goblin, I'm going to question whether I really need to use Color Spray or not and maybe shoot ice instead.
I completely agree that spells > anything that isn't spells, and that control spells > blasting spells. However, without my direction (or me playing said character), every arcane caster I've ever seen cast more Magic Missiles than any other first level spells combined. I've had people scoff at Grease for doing nothing and fear Color Spray because you have to get so close.
I want the game balanced for the best players, but I understand that most players are just doing what's fun, and the game needs to cater to them as well.
I really like this update. It gets rid of a TON of questions about wacky interaction between bloodline powers and limited use stuff.
Wizard and Sorcerer both get more spells per day, but the flexibility on the Arcanist is awesome. Sorcerer gets more uses of power, more uses of their spells, and better daily spell variety if you play a human, whereas Wizard gets spells earlier. It seems nicely balanced so that there are advantages to each one. The small Arcane Resevoir keeps the Arcanist from boosting all her spell DCs willy-nilly or just shutting down an enemy caster.
I don't think that Consume Magic Items is /entirely/ a trap, though. Use it with scrolls. 150 gp for an extra use in a pinch? Not too bad, and certainly flavorful. Compare with Runestones of Power I, at 2k a pop for an extra casting of a first level spell every day. (That lets you consume a first-level spell to get a point back.) It would be nice to make it a pre-req to some ability to suppress magic items somehow, though, so people have a solid reason to take it.
Concerns:
• In a mage-fight, Arcanist seems pretty brutal with boosted CL checks. Immediate action counterspell, then cast on the following turn. Especially since at higher levels, the Arcanist will replenish the expended point. If it's sixth-level slots or more, it also pays for a +2 boost to DC. Regular caster gets out a quickened low-level spell, Arcanist gets a medium-level spell with boosted DC or caster level. This could just be a feature rather than a flaw, though.
(One possible fix would be requiring sacrificing a spell slot that can cast something from the same school?)
• Little more fluff would be nice, but as it stands, the whole "eating magic" thing is pretty awesome.
Awesome job, you guys!
The point of the blasts is not power, it's to give the characters something to do that is thematically appropriate.
Wizards aren't throwing firebolts because firebolts are powerful--they're throwing firebolts because it feels more wizardy to use a firebolt than a crossbow.
Arcanists pointlessly lack this option. Giving them a worthwhile low level blast will not make them stronger, but it will make them more fun, because shooting arcane energy is more fun than shooting a crossbow for an arcane casting class.
I agree that save or lose spells exist as early as 1st level, but:
1) Not everyone wants to use them
2) They can run out pretty fast
3) Having other options makes you more conservative with your more limited resources. If my only choice is Color Spray or crossbow, I'm going to color spray. If my choice is Color Spray or shoot a bolt of ice at the goblin, I'm going to question whether I really need to use Color Spray or not and maybe shoot ice instead.I completely agree that spells > anything that isn't spells, and that control spells > blasting spells. However, without my direction (or me playing said character), every arcane caster I've ever seen cast more Magic Missiles than any other first level spells combined. I've had people scoff at Grease for doing nothing and fear Color Spray because you have to get so close.
I want the game balanced for the best players, but I understand that most players are just doing what's fun, and the game needs to cater to them as well.
As I said just above, I'd love to see Exploits that help boost blasting spells somehow rather than attempting to replace or 'back up' said spells, I'm just not sure what I'd do for it...
You'll also note that I didn't say that, either. I've made no comment on the blasting Exploits because I'm not sure what I'd suggest to fix or replace them.
The thing about designing a caster is that the spells are supposed to be the star...but a lot of the things I'd propose to augment blasting spells are already in the class! Metamagic boosters, metamagic feats, metamagic cost reduction, that sort of thing helps blasters immensely. And Arcanist already does that! Adding a backup blasting feature could be interesting but then I'm asking myself why Pathfinder doesn't just introduce something similar to the old Reserve feats, which return back to the idea that spells are the star of the class while still being repeatable blasting.
We could always boost the power of the ones available to serve as backups for control casters but that doesn't exactly help out the actual blasters, does it? It's an annoying conundrum...
I am just saying that the exploit blasts should be able to benefit more from having a high int (by making that the save stat). The charisma damage bonus is to make them better and still give the arcanist a reason to keep some level of charisma. This will allow them to deal steady save-resisted damage in fights where they don't want to commit any big spells.
You don't want the caster doing nothing when she does not want to commit big spell resources. Let her burn a level 3 spell and blast 3 times to help the fight end faster.
Some schools (like void) have really good throw-away abilities and those are the ones I favor most.
I would also like to see some weak exploit-driven buffs and debuffs.
Things like invisibility for 1+(cha mod) rounds on an ally nearby. Then a greater version that makes the invisibility act as greater invisibility. That can also have a "cantrip-version" that lasts exactly one round.
Or something that lets you have 1d4 spontaneous rounds of (tenzer's) transformation.
Or maybe sleep as an area effect that lasts only 1+cha modifier rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would also like to see some weak exploit-driven buffs and debuffs.
Things like invisibility for 1+(cha mod) rounds on an ally nearby. Then a greater version that makes the invisibility act as greater invisibility. That can also have a "cantrip-version" that lasts exactly one round.
Or something that lets you have a single spontaneous round of (tenzer's) transformation.
Or maybe sleep as an area effect that lasts only 1+cha modifier rounds.
I really think that's the wrong way to go. Spell-replacement shouldn't be a thing, not for power concerns but because, well, spells already do that. You're playing a spellcaster for that reason, right?
I would like to see more direct interactions between Exploits and spells...
I would also like to see some weak exploit-driven buffs and debuffs.
Things like invisibility for 1+(cha mod) rounds on an ally nearby. Then a greater version that makes the invisibility act as greater invisibility. That can also have a "cantrip-version" that lasts exactly one round.
Or something that lets you have a single spontaneous round of (tenzer's) transformation.
Or maybe sleep as an area effect that lasts only 1+cha modifier rounds.
I really think that's the wrong way to go. Spell-replacement shouldn't be a thing, not for power concerns but because, well, spells already do that. You're playing a spellcaster for that reason, right?
I would like to see more direct interactions between Exploits and spells...
I think exploits should be EXACTLY focused on replacing spells. They should turn one level 3 spell into three weaker spelly effects. That is the way I see them being paid back for their low spells per day. it lets them actually do things more times per day. Those things aren't as good as the full spells but they are still things that they can do.
As it stands, they run out of spells faster than any class in existence and have far less they can do without spells. By making all their exploits spell modifiers, that gives them EVEN LESS that they can do without spells and puts them in EVEN MORE need for more spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, question.
Is the spell slot used to fuel the reserve wiping spells from memory or using one of the daily uses? Niether actually calls it slots; prepared or daily use.I agree that the item consume needs to be more toward item suppression than the breaking of items. Seems that the current phrasing could be more for an arcane bane class than a caster.
My belief is to have more availble points than the current formula.
I'm pretty sure anything referring to a "spell slot" is specifically refering to the ability to cast a spell, not having the spell prepared for the day.
Con the subject of these blasts- Since it is a fair point that schools and bloodlines give you something semi-handy to kill a few otherwise idle rounds with at low levels, would it work to add something like this to all the blasting exploits?
"This ability may be used without expending a point of arcane power a number of times per day equal to 3+the arcanist's charisma modifier."
Keeps it nice and limited for the real nasty spell-replicating powers, makes the raw damage options a little more attractive, particularly at low levels where you're worried about tapping out.
Also, has anyone actually tested this much yet? I'm particularly curious about how consume magic items plays in the field. Obviously, most days you aren't going to touch it, but on those occasions when you know you have a heavy load of combat in front of you, i.e. it's a serious dungeon crawling day, I can easily see taking a giant wad of scrolls scribed during downtime for these sorts of special occasions, chain smoking the whole pile first thing in the morning, and suddenly being this exception to the rule- A caster who wants to keep the party running as long as possible so his bloated pool doesn't go to waste.
Really curious how well this pays off in actual play, in terms of both the investment cost, and whether you can practically spend the triple int pool down enough to ever bother getting it up there.
"This ability may be used without expending a point of arcane power a number of times per day equal to 3+the arcanist's charisma modifier."We should ask ourselves what is the point on placing a limit when they are intended to just be used in idle rounds (and are less powerful than spells). They will hardly ever be used more than the limit, so why bother with the paperwork of keeping track?
Well, it might be important if we expand the use of these "cantrip-like" abilities to single round buffs or other things that might be useful at higher levels. It is also in line with the general design of wizard and sorceror as they stand (who usually get one "3+stat" usage ability themselves). It is also yet another way to allow an arcanist to benefit from charisma that is not as onerous as forcing their exploit saves to be based on charisma.
"This ability may be used without expending a point of arcane power a number of times per day equal to 3+the arcanist's charisma modifier."We should ask ourselves what is the point on placing a limit when they are intended to just be used in idle rounds (and are less powerful than spells). They will hardly ever be used more than the limit, so why bother with the paperwork of keeping track?
It keeps them in line with the precedent established by other classes. Nobody gets unlimited use scaling touch attacks at level 1. Even gunslingers can't compete with that, and getting scaling touch attacks is the entire point of their class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said just above, I'd love to see Exploits that help boost blasting spells somehow rather than attempting to replace or 'back up' said spells, I'm just not sure what I'd do for it...
To be honest, I definitely want Exploits to replace spells. I like magic, but am not a big fan of spells. For example, I like the Witch a lot because hexes basically replace spells. You have spells sure, but they are not the focus by any stretch, Hexes are. Spells are something extra.
I am totally behind Arcanist being a 6th level caster with Exploits. Actually, I'm totally behind an Arcanist being a non-caster with Exploits that do everything and duplicate spells. I like Exploits that let you maybe copy spells other people have cast, Blue Mage Style instead of having your own spells. I like Arcanist being a 3.5 Warlock rip off even though they were weak because I enjoyed At-will magic powers more than limited resource spells, even those that dominate and control games.
I like Exploits more than spells (and I like the name Exploit so much because it calls to mind exactly the flavor I love--a magical hacker). As far as I'm concerned, the whole class should be focused on exploits with spells being a second, back up focus.
It keeps them in line with the precedent established by other classes. Nobody gets unlimited use scaling touch attacks at level 1. Even gunslingers can't compete with that, and getting scaling touch attacks is the entire point of their class."This ability may be used without expending a point of arcane power a number of times per day equal to 3+the arcanist's charisma modifier."We should ask ourselves what is the point on placing a limit when they are intended to just be used in idle rounds (and are less powerful than spells). They will hardly ever be used more than the limit, so why bother with the paperwork of keeping track?
Its a precedent, but is it a good precedent?
Gunslingers can also put far more dakka into their touch attack and quickly do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would also like to see some weak exploit-driven buffs and debuffs.
Things like invisibility for 1+(cha mod) rounds on an ally nearby. Then a greater version that makes the invisibility act as greater invisibility. That can also have a "cantrip-version" that lasts exactly one round.
Or something that lets you have a single spontaneous round of (tenzer's) transformation.
Or maybe sleep as an area effect that lasts only 1+cha modifier rounds.
I really think that's the wrong way to go. Spell-replacement shouldn't be a thing, not for power concerns but because, well, spells already do that. You're playing a spellcaster for that reason, right?
I would like to see more direct interactions between Exploits and spells...
Agreed.
Exploids that just do what a Spell do is no good. But exploits that interact with spells would be cool. Freeing some ones simulacrums, putting an invisibel Web around a fireball caster that make his fireballs og of when they lave his hand stuff like that.
As I said just above, I'd love to see Exploits that help boost blasting spells somehow rather than attempting to replace or 'back up' said spells, I'm just not sure what I'd do for it...To be honest, I definitely want Exploits to replace spells. I like magic, but am not a big fan of spells. For example, I like the Witch a lot because hexes basically replace spells. You have spells sure, but they are not the focus by any stretch, Hexes are. Spells are something extra.
I am totally behind Arcanist being a 6th level caster with Exploits. Actually, I'm totally behind an Arcanist being a non-caster with Exploits that do everything and duplicate spells. I like Exploits that let you maybe copy spells other people have cast, Blue Mage Style instead of having your own spells. I like Arcanist being a 3.5 Warlock rip off even though they were weak because I enjoyed At-will magic powers more than limited resource spells, even those that dominate and control games.
I like Exploits more than spells (and I like the name Exploit so much because it calls to mind exactly the flavor I love--a magical hacker). As far as I'm concerned, the whole class should be focused on exploits with spells being a second, back up focus.
Sounds like someone wants a 3.5 warlock rather than a sorceror/wizard gish. And that is an okay thing to want, IMO! I am not sure it really fits here, though.
Perhaps I can imagine a version (or archetype) of this class that gets something like bard or inquisitor spell progression, but in return gets a point pool of int+arcanist level that starts off at full every day. That seems roughly balanced to me.
But that also seems quite besides the point of the class we began talking about (a sorceror/wizard gish). And I also think I imagine a "magic hacker" as being a guy with 9 full levels of casting and then the ability to break down those spells to do other things (like the arcanist currently can).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I seem to be in the minority, but I consistently play at low to mid levels. All this talk of Arcanists being uber strong because of 9th level spells is interesting in theory but irrelevant to me...
My vote is to take the blasty powers out of the arcane pool expenditure but keep them as exploits. Alternately, give a completely unrelated blast at level 1 that does 1d6 + 1/level damage that has 3 + int/cha modifier of uses per day.
Perhaps level the die/power level of the acid jet, flame arc, force strike, ice missile, and lightning lance exploits where they are, minus the inflicted conditions, as a standard action as long as they have at least 1 point left in their arcanist reservoir pool. Then let them burn a point to bump the damage die up one (or two?) die (or add part/all of their Cha mod) and the target to save vs. condition effect.
Also, flame arc needs more "umpf" or it'll never get taken by a PC. Too many critters resist/are immune to fire for an arcanist to burn a valuable exploit slot on it. Perhaps it could tap the Nine Hells/Abyss so that 25% or so of its damage would be unholy energy? Or perhaps it generates smoke/heat distortion that obscures the target's vision granting concealment to others (like blur/obscuring mist)?
Perhaps I can imagine a version (or archetype) of this class that gets something like bard or inquisitor spell progression, but in return gets a point pool of int+arcanist level that starts off at full every day. That seems roughly balanced to me.
That is actually horrifically weaker unless you really have fantastic things coming out of that pool.