Arcanist Discussion - Revised

[JRutterbush]

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Well, there you go. So that is 4 type-1 runestones of power for 8k so that will get you the equivalent of 4 AR points per day (without the exploit!) to that one staff's 10 points a week.

Tels wrote:

Consider the fact that Craft Staff is an 11th level feat, while Craft Wondrous is a 3rd level feat. This means you could craft your own Runestones for 1,000 gp, meaning you get 8 AR points for the price of that staff.

Granted, this is only an option outside of PFS or games where GM's don't heavily restrict Crafting feats.

[Edit] To clarify, that's 8 AR points that are renewed each day, without expending any other resources. Meanwhile, the staff requires the Arcanist to spend 1 spell slot each day to recharge that Staff, so it takes 10 days to recharge the staff.

Personally, I think buying 4 Runestones is more efficient than purchasing 1 staff is, and crafting your own Runestones is just hands down the better choice.

I just want to clarify that Runestones of Power also don't, technically, refresh actual spell slots. They let you cast a spell using the stone instead of a spell slot. Specifically, it says "Once per day, a spontaneous caster can draw upon a runestone of power to cast a spell — doing so is part of the spellcasting action, and expends that runestone’s power for the day rather than one of the spellcaster’s actual spell slots for the day." It uses the Runestone instead of a spell slot, it doesn't refill your spell slot. So while you could use your actual spell slots to power your Arcane Reserve and then use nothing but Runestones to cast your spells, you can't actually use the Runestone itself to refill your Arcane Reserve.

Which means, for example, that crafting 8 Runestones actually won't give you 8 AR points per day. Say an Arcanist has 4 1st level spells per day, for example, and 8 1st level Runestones. That Arcanist could use his 4 1st level spell slots to power his Arcane Reserve, then still cast 8 1st level spells that day using the Runestones. If he uses his 4 1st level spell slots to cast spells, however, he can still only use his Runestones to cast 8 more 1st level spells, he can't use them to refill his Arcane Reserve.

They're still useful, but not as useful as they seem at first glance.

[Tels]

thaX wrote:

I believe the Arcanist pool is being looked at in a way that is skewed toward the want of a mana points mechanic. I, however, want to stay away from this Psionic mistake as much as possible.

I believe an alternative way to refuel points needs to be looked at, or having the point accumulate through actions as Grit has done. I still believe a higher starting value is needed. Let's face it, the current total with the limited way to gain more points makes the use of the Exploits a more guarded resource than the spells that are very few at low levels.

Another option that has been offered is ripe for abuse, which is having the magic items be suppressed instead of destroyed. Having items specifically for this over and over again is something that I think the developers want to avoid.

Having powers use the Ki principle (as long as you have a point, use...) doesn't really fit with the Arcanist fluff.

The elemental powers need to have the Saving Throw negate the secondary effect, not halve the damage.

My proposal would be to have the pool only be 2x the Arcanist level, gaining 2 points plus 2 for every three levels ( 2 at 1st, 4 at 3rd, 6 at 6th and so on) and have Greater Exploits would cost two points. I would scrap the item chew and keep the spell slot burn for points, getting points equal to the level spell slot spent. I am just not sure what to use in place of Item Destruction, or what actions to have rejuvenate points.

Or, having a thought, keep the structure the same but have points rejuvenate for each spell slot that is used to cast a spell. (points gained equal to the level of spell cast)

The one thing I agree with everyone else is the Consuming of items needs axed. When 3.0 removed the EXP cost of creation, they also kept silly things like this from the game also. It is a punishment for playing the class and does not fit Thematically.

Nitpick, 3.0 didn't remove the XP cost from item creation, Pathfinder did.

[thaX]

Ah. Stupid to use EXP to create stuff, but what 4th ed did was worse.

Guess the eggs got scrambled a bit. I remember one version of the "brand" did do away with it, just jumped the gun on which one.

[redward]

I don't think they should remove Consume Magic Items power just because it could cause intraparty conflict. Jerks will always be jerks. Designing the game for the lowest common denominator will only result in a watered-down product.

You will have two situations where an Arcanist can use Consume Magic Items:
1. Organized play, where the party will receive the value of the item regardless, and where if it becomes a problem, campaign management will ban the class or exploit.
2. Home games, where the party can work out what gets consumed and what doesn't, and where the GM can ban the Class or the specific Exploit if it is a concern for the group.

Just because you can't handle it doesn't mean others shouldn't get access.

Now that is not to say that there isn't room for discussion on the ROI of the Exploit. But meta issues shouldn't drive in-game mechanics (IMHO).

[Saint Caleth]

redward wrote:

Designing the game for the lowest common denominator will only result in a watered-down product.

To everyone who wants to use PFS as any kind of model for a real campaign, PFS is that lowest common denomenator in this situation. No matter how many people play it, it still represents the game being homogenized with many options removed so lets not pretend that it represents the strengths of this game as a whole.

The PFS leadership can deal with weird interactions between new content and their house rules by banning the new content. We don't need to bowdlerize anything for their sake.

[Drachasor]

redward wrote:

I don't think they should remove Consume Magic Items power just because it [b]could[/c] cause intraparty conflict. Jerks will always be jerks. Designing the game for the lowest common denominator will only result in a watered-down product.

True. But paying people $5 to slap other people in the face or call them names will increase the amount of slappage and name-calling.

Why have a mechanic that encourages this sort of thing? Especially when the vast majority of uses are financially horrible. Let's keep in mind that many people don't have a good head for numbers, so they'll be destroying a lot of wealth without realize how bad of an idea it is.

Sub-optimal abilities are one thing. But an ability that really encourages bad decisions and can cause conflict if you use it as intended just isn't worth it.

I'm not 100% against an ability like Consume Items per se. But it needs a complete rewrite at least.

That said, if they can mess with magic in magical items, it seems very strange that they can't take Craft feats with Exploits. They can get metamagic that way, after all.

[Virgil Firecask]

For those of you who have it, Herolab just updated to include the revised Arcanist class.

[Nipin]

I feel a nice balance between INT and CHA would work for this class. I would have INT as the spellcasting stat and then push CHA as THE stat for Exploits. I also feel this class is running the risk of being the no-resources caster for the first few levels (which is particularly worrisome for new players who tend to blow their resources too fast playing lowbie casters). I would like to suggest two changes to the class. The first addresses increasing the need for CHA and gives the Arcanist a few more resources at early levels. The second addresses the lackluster blast exploits which provides a good option to fill the early levels for the Arcanist.

STARTING AP PER DAY
I feel (as others have mentioned before) the starting number of AP for a day is too low especially at low levels. I would change the starting value for the day to CHA + 1/5 lvls (minimum of 1 AP). This increases the need for CHA (making it a non-dump stat if you want usable amounts of AP) and gives decent 3-4 AP at 1st level with a potential max of 5 for someone who dumps other stats for CHA (18 base with +2 racial). At later levels, the reduced scaling brings the amount of AP back in line with the previous values. I will present some sample progressions for starting amount of AP per day for the current progression(1+1/2 lvl), then three versions using my proposed progression(CHA+1/5 lvl); a CHA focused build, a balanced INT/CHA build, and an INT focused build.

current progression:

01 - 01
02 - 02
03 - 02
04 - 03
05 - 03
06 - 04
07 - 04
08 - 05
09 - 05
10 - 06
11 - 06
12 - 07
13 - 07
14 - 08
15 - 08
16 - 09
17 - 09
18 - 10
19 - 10
20 - 11

CHA+1/5 lvl progression assuming CHA focus:

01 - 03 20 cha, but capped at 3x lvl
02 - 05
03 - 05
04 - 06 (add headband +2 and 1 lvl bonus) 23 cha
05 - 07
06 - 07
07 - 07
08 - 09 (increase headband to +4 and add 1 lvl bonus) 26 cha
09 - 09
10 - 10
11 - 11 (increase headband to +6) 28 cha
12 - 11 (add +1 cha) 29 cha
13 - 11
14 - 11
15 - 12
16 - 13 (add +1 cha) 30 cha
17 - 13
18 - 13
19 - 13
20 - 14

CHA+1/5 lvl progression assuming balanced INT/CHA:

01 - 03 16 INT/CHA
02 - 03
03 - 03
04 - 03 (add headband +2 INT and +1 lvl bonus to cha)18 INT/17 CHA
05 - 04
06 - 04
07 - 05 (increase headband to +2 INT/CHA) 18 INT/19 CHA
08 - 06 (add +1 lvl bonus to CHA) 18 INT/20 CHA
09 - 06
10 - 07
11 - 08 (increase headband to +4 INT/CHA) 20 INT/22 CHA
12 - 08 (add +1 lvl bonus to INT) 21 INT/22 CHA
13 - 08
14 - 09 (increase headband to +6 INT/CHA) 22 INT/24 CHA
15 - 10
16 - 11 (add +1 lvl bonus to INT) 24 INT/24 CHA
17 - 11
18 - 11
19 - 11
20 - 12

CHA+1/5 lvl progression assuming INT focus:

01 - 01 20 INT/ 13CHA
02 - 01
03 - 01
04 - 01 (add headband +2 INT and +1 lvl bonus to INT)23 INT/13 CHA
05 - 02
06 - 02
07 - 02
08 - 02 (increase headband to +4 INT and add +1 lvl bonus to INT) 26 INT/13 CHA
09 - 02
10 - 03
11 - 03 (increase headband to +6 INT) 28 INT/13 CHA
12 - 03 (add +1 lvl bonus to INT) 29 INT/13 CHA
13 - 03
14 - 06 (increase headband to +6 INT/CHA) 29 INT/ 19CHA
15 - 07
16 - 07 (add +1 lvl bonus to INT) 30 INT/19 CHA
17 - 07
18 - 07
19 - 07
20 - 09 (add +1 lvl bonus to CHA) 24 INT/20 CHA

NOTE: I am not listing the number of spells per day here as that would make this long post a nightmare to read in depth. I can go back and add this analysis later if requested.

I expect actual play would push CHA early and then INT around 8-9. This gives a good bit of CHA early for more AP and then focuses on bringing INT up once the better AP gaining exploits come online. This would also end up looking similar to the balanced progression with a little bit more AP in the early levels at the cost of bonus spells/day and spell DCs. If someone wanted to push CHA to the exclusion of INT they would end up with a +1-2 mod on INT until very late game which will hurt the already low spells per day and make any spell with a DC not worth casting in most cases.

BLAST EXPLOITS
I would also suggest (again as many others before have) that the blast exploits should not have the damage reduced if the save is succeeded. The blast exploits should all have similar damage (force should be lower than the others) something like 2d4+1/2 lvls (1d6+1/2 lvls for force). Then the greater versions should all add some interesting effect(daze, entangle, set on fire, topple, etc.) OR damage (2d4+1/2 lvl becomes 2d6+1/2 lvl) and have a save for the new effect. If the greater version increases dmg then the save should decrease dmg, otherwise the save only affects the effect.

PS - I will probably comment on some of the other Exploits later, but this was what has been on my mind. Also, I am trying to hang around and see what happens with the full writeup when the next pdf appears. There has already been a lot of discussion about the big exploits (counterspelling and vampiring magic items).

[The Golux]

With the flavor of seeing/working with magic itself, I think it would be cool if, at some point (probably over level 10), they could get the ability to dispel/eat/suppress spell-like abilities in addition to spells, if they can't already (not sure exactly how that works).

[Tels]

It might be cool, and thematic I think, for there to be an Exploit that allows Arcanists to gradually ignore expensive material components. It could be tied into Spell Tinkerer.

Spell Tinkerer (Su):The arcanist can alter an existing spell effect by expending one point from her arcane reservoir....

... An arcanist can, as an immediate action, spend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to lessen the cost of expensive material components. This point reduces the cost of expensive components by 100 gp per arcanist level. The arcanist can spend additional points to further reduce the cost if desired.

If the arcanist readies an action when an ally casts a spell, the arcanist can use spell tinkerer to lessen the cost of an allies material component, but points spent in this fashion only reduce the cost by half the normal amount.

Considering the name and nature of Spell Tinkerer, I think reducing material component costs would be really appropriate. This could also let things happen like an Arcanist blowing her entire reservoir to let a Cleric apply a needed Resurrection or Limited Wish or something like that.

[Unmitigated]

I think the fact that spell tinkerer by RAW can literally suppress Antimagic Field, Prismatic Wall and the like for the Arcanist makes them absolutely bonkers. And it's not even a greater exploit. That's easily Spell Sunder level broken.

Also for efficiency (especially considering that the arcanist now natively wants Cha), why wouldn't you just be a Half-Elf/Focused Study Human and take Skill Focus: Knowledge [Foo] and Eldritch Heritage (Arcane)? Pick Staff and you get Craft Weapons and Craft Staff at the appropriate level. Free pool points.

(Unrelated) - A friend of mine figured out that a staff with every single 1st and 2nd level spell available to the Sor/Wiz was trivially inexpensive compared to power level. Food for thought.

On reading a few more, it feels like an Arcanist based around Abjuration would be incredibly potent, able to bypass their own barriers with ease, while Destructive Dispel siphoning and counterspelling their opponents quite mercilessly. INT scaling at higher levels solves many (but not all) of the issues with the spell slots, but honestly the spell flexibility is brutal. I think the exploits really need to be looked over again.

[NWolff]

I haven't gone through all the replies of this thread so I don't know if someone else already addressed this but I have a concern with the elemental ranged touch attack abilities.

I am curious why, when they are already ranged touch attacks, do they require a reflex save for half damage and to negate the effect. I can understand negating the debuff effect but it should probably be a fortitude save for that. And typically if something is an attack roll it does not require a save.

Someone probably already mentioned this but if not I figured it should be brought to your attention :).

Cheers!

EDIT: Okay looking up just a few posts above me Nipin addressed the blast exploits as well. I would like to clarify that I think the staggered/sickened conditions should be fortitude saves and the dazzled condition should be a reflex save.

[Craft Cheese]

Unmitigated wrote:

I think the fact that spell tinkerer by RAW can literally suppress Antimagic Field, Prismatic Wall and the like for the Arcanist makes them absolutely bonkers. And it's not even a greater exploit. That's easily Spell Sunder level broken.

Prismatic Wall? Yes. Antimagic field? Only if you aren't already inside it, since it's a supernatural ability. My favorite use I've found for spell tinkering is to teleport out of a place with a dimensional lock, or after you get hit with a dimensional anchor.

[Scimmy]

An arcanist should have a mechanic to learn spells outside the sorcerer wizard list in a limited fashion. They are learning the inner workings of magic so why wouldn't they be able to adapt even divine spells for arcane use (although maybe at a higher level?).

The more I think about it, I think spell tinker should replace the exploits as the class ability and you can choose from a plethora of ways to adjust the magic around you. As someone just mentioned using your reservoir to modify an ally's spells as they are cast would be awesome. Or instead of counter spelling you apply magic debuffs to spells the enemy casts. Identify then lower a save DC or caster level, decrease the time it lasts, or even change the target. Stealing a healing spell the enemy casts and redirecting it to one of your allies. I think spell tinkering is what this class should do with it's arcane reservoir. I love what they have done, but remove the rather pathetic blasts and it is all tinkering with magic. This is the way to go I think.

[Snorter]

Excaliburproxy wrote:

8k will ALSO buy 8 pearls of power. That is 8 level 1 spells every DAY (which becomes 8 AR points).

JRutterbush wrote:

A Pearl of Power doesn't help an Arcanist as written. Specifically, it doesn't refresh a spell slot, it just re-prepares a spell for you:...

I believe the comparison is being made with pearls of power, because there have been concerns raised about the ease with which an Arcanist could replenish their AR pool, very cheaply, by draining an 8000gp staff which is always considered recharged before any PFS scenario.

Considering a Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Witch/etc could spend 8000gp on 8 pearls of power, to get 8 free level 1 spells per day, and that the Consume Spells ability equates a level 1 spell slot as = 1 AR, the argument by Excalibur is that 8000 gp seems about right, and there is precedent for this.

I think this analogy only holds, if the effects than can be gained from a point of AR are equivalent in power or utility to a level 1 spell slot. But they're clearly not.
Certainly, if it's expected that Arcanists are using these 'free' AR to fuel the various ranged touch attacks, then yes, who cares? They aren't more powerful than 1st-level staples like Shocking Grasp, Magic Missile, etc.
But when these AR could fuel abilities like Dimensional Slide?
That's replicating a fourth level spell; it has the limitation that the destination has to be seen, but many times dimension door is used for short-range repositioning, and the exploit has the advantage of allowing movement after 'porting, which makes it better than dimension door.

The current exploits are clearly of highly variable worth, and I believe they should require AR costs to scale, appropriate to the power of the effect.
Metamagic rods have scaling cost, dependent on the level of the spell affected; should the same apply when manipulating a spell via exploit?

[andreww]

Craft Cheese wrote:

Unmitigated wrote:

I think the fact that spell tinkerer by RAW can literally suppress Antimagic Field, Prismatic Wall and the like for the Arcanist makes them absolutely bonkers. And it's not even a greater exploit. That's easily Spell Sunder level broken.

Prismatic Wall? Yes. Antimagic field? Only if you aren't already inside it, since it's a supernatural ability. My favorite use I've found for spell tinkering is to teleport out of a place with a dimensional lock, or after you get hit with a dimensional anchor.

I rather like the ability to suppress hold and paralysis type effects, removing the need for Silent/Still spell.

[slayer_of_gellcor]

I was thinking a neat exploit might be to be able to convert spells you save against into ooints for your arcane resevoir. It would only work on single target spells, but I could see the Arcanist being like a walking rod of absorption.

[Drachasor]

Snorter wrote:

The current exploits are clearly of highly variable worth, and I believe they should require AR costs to scale, appropriate to the power of the effect.

Metamagic rods have scaling cost, dependent on the level of the spell affected; should the same apply when manipulating a spell via exploit?

There's just going to be no elegant way to balance that, I think. Unless we go with geometrically increasing AR size and then costs that scale up based on what you are modifying. That would be a far easier way to get a balance together.

Though that would make an even more compelling argument for just merging AR (which should be renamed into Arcane Pool, imho) into the spellcasting system for the Arcanist. IMHO.

[Snorter]

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Maybe this whole line of discussion will necessitate a reworking of the Arcane Reservoir mechanic?

Like: have each level of spell grant points equal to 2N-1.

So:
1st gives 1 point
2nd gives 3 points
3rd gives 5 points
4th gives 7 points
5th gives 9 points
6th gives 11 points
7th gives 13 points
8th gives 15 points
9th gives 17 points

Then the size of the reservoir and costs of powers is adjusted accordingly:
Arcana pool equal to level.

Then increase the costs of powers accordingly.

This would also give the designers latitude to use point cost to balance exploits. Under the algebra above, the counter-spell exploit (which is melting people's minds) could cost a number of arcana points to activate equal to the level of the spell.

Blasts can stay one point forever because they are more or less worthless OR have their power scale with the points invested (gaaaaasp maybe this is sounding like old psionics rules).

Shhhh. Keep it under your hat, or we'll have the anti-psionics crowd in here, spoiling the possibility of spellpool mechanics for everyone.

"GET YUOR SCIENCEFICTION OUT OF MAH FANTASY! ITS NOT REALISTIC!"

[Lormyr]

Shisumo wrote:

Seekers of Secrets came out in 2009, while the RotRL Anniversary Edition came out in 2012. In RotRL AE, they're artifacts; since that's the latest source, I'm sticking with it. (Even setting aside that practically everything in SoS has been retconned at this point...)

Can you point me to where the game mechanic stuff from SoS has been retconned? I am not aware of any such thing. There is no faq or errata regarding it that I have been able to locate. I am aware some of the fluff has been altered and expanded upon since it's release, but that does not impact game mechanics.

[AndIMustMask]

Snorter wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Maybe this whole line of discussion will necessitate a reworking of the Arcane Reservoir mechanic?

Like: have each level of spell grant points equal to 2N-1.

So:
1st gives 1 point
2nd gives 3 points
3rd gives 5 points
4th gives 7 points
5th gives 9 points
6th gives 11 points
7th gives 13 points
8th gives 15 points
9th gives 17 points

Then the size of the reservoir and costs of powers is adjusted accordingly:
Arcana pool equal to level.

Then increase the costs of powers accordingly.

This would also give the designers latitude to use point cost to balance exploits. Under the algebra above, the counter-spell exploit (which is melting people's minds) could cost a number of arcana points to activate equal to the level of the spell.

Blasts can stay one point forever because they are more or less worthless OR have their power scale with the points invested (gaaaaasp maybe this is sounding like old psionics rules).

Shhhh. Keep it under your hat, or we'll have the anti-psionics crowd in here, spoiling the possibility of spellpool mechanics for everyone.

"GET YUOR SCIENCEFICTION OUT OF MAH FANTASY! ITS NOT REALISTIC!"

>fantasy

>realistic

THE STUPID
IT BUUUURNS

[Amaranthine Witch]

Lormyr wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Seekers of Secrets came out in 2009, while the RotRL Anniversary Edition came out in 2012. In RotRL AE, they're artifacts; since that's the latest source, I'm sticking with it. (Even setting aside that practically everything in SoS has been retconned at this point...)

Can you point me to where the game mechanic stuff from SoS has been retconned? I am not aware of any such thing. There is no faq or errata regarding it that I have been able to locate. I am aware some of the fluff has been altered and expanded upon since it's release, but that does not impact game mechanics.

Karzoug's Ioun Stones are in page 421 of the Anniversary Editon. They are called Thassilonian Ioun Stones and are minor artifacts.

[Lormyr]

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

Karzoug's Ioun Stones are in page 421 of the Anniversary Editon. They are called Thassilonian Ioun Stones and are minor artifacts.

I understand that. I am questioning if there was some official FAQ or errata for Seekers of Secrets that in some fashion invalidates those ioun stones for purchase. If there is, it is not known to me and I would like a chance to read it.

The ones Karzoug possesses as artifacts are in all ways identical to the non-artifact versions PCs can purchase from Seekers. Perhaps there was a clerical error somewhere, or this issue was simply overlooked between the time of RotRL orginal printing --> Seekers or Secrets --> RotRL AE, or maybe Karzoug is just intended to have "super special" ioun stones.

I am at the moment less concerned about that than I am if these ioun stones were errata'd at some point to not be purchasable.

[Shisumo]

Lormyr wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Seekers of Secrets came out in 2009, while the RotRL Anniversary Edition came out in 2012. In RotRL AE, they're artifacts; since that's the latest source, I'm sticking with it. (Even setting aside that practically everything in SoS has been retconned at this point...)

Can you point me to where the game mechanic stuff from SoS has been retconned? I am not aware of any such thing. There is no faq or errata regarding it that I have been able to locate. I am aware some of the fluff has been altered and expanded upon since it's release, but that does not impact game mechanics.

Not as such, no - but I'm not concerned with the broader question, just noting that Karzoug's stones are artifacts.

[Amaranthine Witch]

Lormyr wrote:

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

Karzoug's Ioun Stones are in page 421 of the Anniversary Editon. They are called Thassilonian Ioun Stones and are minor artifacts.

I understand that. I am questioning if there was some official FAQ or errata for Seekers of Secrets that in some fashion invalidates those ioun stones for purchase. If there is, it is not known to me and I would like a chance to read it.

The ones Karzoug possesses as artifacts are in all ways identical to the non-artifact versions PCs can purchase from Seekers. Perhaps there was a clerical error somewhere, or this issue was simply overlooked between the time of RotRL orginal printing --> Seekers or Secrets --> RotRL AE, or maybe Karzoug is just intended to have "super special" ioun stones.

I am at the moment less concerned about that than I am if these ioun stones were errata'd at some point to not be purchasable.

As far as I know, they remain separate items, despite the variants having the same names and the same powers. The fact that Karzoug's are artifacts makes them immune to dispel magic and antimagic field, and makes mage's disjunction less useful (and potentially dangerous to the caster).

[Lormyr]

I'm pleased there is no actual errata. Our GM was aware that they are labeled as artifacts in AE, he just thought that was a misprint due to their entry in SoS. When we have round 2 this weekend we'll run them as they appear in AE and see how that flies.

I don't have any problem letting the Arcanist do his solo Karzoug room attempt over again. I'm more curious to see how a high level bloodrager will look in play (I tried out the shaman last time).

[DiscOH]

Arcane tinkerer shouldn't stack with itself, otherwise you turn every spell permanent for free around level 6

[redward]

The Pathfinder Savant Prestige Class is a nice fit for the Arcanist, flavor-wise. How's it look mechanically?

For an Arcanist 5/Pathfinder Savant 3 scrolls can act as both Arcane-Bond-like backups and Arcane Reservoir batteries.

What other caster PrCs would work well with the Arcanist? From a PFS perspective, you're hardly going to be seeing any of the Greater exploits or Magical Supremacy. So the only thing you're missing is extra Exploits.

[Nipin]

I also wanted to say something about Spell Tinkerer causing an exponential increase in duration. It is my understanding that multiplicative effects (typically) multiply the base value and not the result of a previously multiplied value. So, a X2 and a X2 becomes a X3 as opposed to the expected X4. For example, I apply spell tinkerer to get 150% duration and then apply spell tinkerer again to get 200% duration. This may require a rewrite to be more clear, but that is my understanding of how it should be adjudicated (RAI if you will). I would alter the description to something like "adds 50% of the base duration of the spell to the time remaining". This means you could use this to extend some spells' durations forever given enough points (especially hour/lvl spells which can be a nice boon). However, you won't make a minute/lvl spell last indefinitely even at 20th level, and it would take an excessive amount of points and a reasonably high level to make a 10 minute/lvl spell last indefinitely (which is not typically worth the points it would cost).

[JRutterbush]

Nipin wrote:

I also wanted to say something about Spell Tinkerer causing an exponential increase in duration. It is my understanding that multiplicative effects (typically) multiply the base value and not the result of a previously multiplied value. So, a X2 and a X2 becomes a X3 as opposed to the expected X4.

This is for combining multipliers as part of the same effect. For example, if Spell Tinkerer allowed you to spend more than one Arcane point as part of the same action to increase the duration by an additional +50% per point spent, then the multiplication rules would come into play. However, Spell Tinkering actually modifies the duration directly, so a spell with a duration of 8 hours (for example) now has a duration of 6 hours. When you hit it with Spell Tinkering a second time, it doesn't "remember" that it's already been hit with it before. All the rules see is that it's a spell with a duration of 12 hours, so Arcane Tinkering turns it into a spell with a duration of 18 hours. And again with a third application: it sees a spell with a duration of 18 hours, and so changes it to 27 hours.

To use a different example: if I hit you with two x2 critical hits as part of a full attack action in the same round, I end up dealing x4 damage, not x3. Since they are two separate attacks, their multipliers are considered to be two separate instances of multiplication, they're not combined using the rules for multiple multipliers.

That said, I agree that the language of Spell Tinkerer needs to be changed. Personally, I would just limit it to be able to modify a given spell only once.

[thaX]

I still think that the Consume Magical Item thing is seriously messed up, not the mechanics, but the overall cost it would bring to the Arcanist and possibly the party he is a part of.

There should be another way to rejuvenate points in the Reserve without having to eat items.

Next we will have the class get a rust monster as a familiar...

[Benn Roe]

thaX wrote:

Next we will have the class get a rust monster as a familiar...

This!! Make this an option! The arcanist is secretly the magical fantasy land equivalent of a luddite, and has an unquenchable thirst for the destruction of magic items and weaponry. This is the real class niche that needs filling... under our noses the whole time too.

[Thomas, A]

See some cool counter spell option which is pretty cool

[Cap. Darling]

Snorter wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

8k will ALSO buy 8 pearls of power. That is 8 level 1 spells every DAY (which becomes 8 AR points).

JRutterbush wrote:

A Pearl of Power doesn't help an Arcanist as written. Specifically, it doesn't refresh a spell slot, it just re-prepares a spell for you:...

I believe the comparison is being made with pearls of power, because there have been concerns raised about the ease with which an Arcanist could replenish their AR pool, very cheaply, by draining an 8000gp staff which is always considered recharged before any PFS scenario.

Considering a Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Witch/etc could spend 8000gp on 8 pearls of power, to get 8 free level 1 spells per day, and that the Consume Spells ability equates a level 1 spell slot as = 1 AR, the argument by Excalibur is that 8000 gp seems about right, and there is precedent for this.

I think this analogy only holds, if the effects than can be gained from a point of AR are equivalent in power or utility to a level 1 spell slot. But they're clearly not.
Certainly, if it's expected that Arcanists are using these 'free' AR to fuel the various ranged touch attacks, then yes, who cares? They aren't more powerful than 1st-level staples like Shocking Grasp, Magic Missile, etc.
But when these AR could fuel abilities like Dimensional Slide?
That's replicating a fourth level spell; it has the limitation that the destination has to be seen, but many times dimension door is used for short-range repositioning, and the exploit has the advantage of allowing movement after 'porting, which makes it better than dimension door.

The current exploits are clearly of highly variable worth, and I believe they should require AR costs to scale, appropriate to the power of the effect.
Metamagic rods have scaling cost, dependent on the level of the spell affected; should the same apply when manipulating a spell via exploit?

The current exploits is as you say totally screwed in Price and balance. And not really trying to balance the class towards other classes. This is somwhat like the problem they had when making the summoner. They wanted a 9 spell level arcana caster with a powerfull pet. And because they were unwilling to make the pet really, bad like familiar level bad, they reduced the casting to 6 levels with a broken Spell list.

I see 3 different ways the Arcanist can go.
1: They can go all in on the exploits. Make the varier and a good real powerfull class feature. And keep the 9 Spell levels. That way they will make a really powerfull class that rivals the wizard in utility, just better.
2: They can do the same but just go to a 6 level Spell list. There can be exploits that allow for just about any thing. It can be the magic hacker that can take on the multinationals but how him self cannot built and run a meagcompany. ( this is my favorite solution)
3: They can try to balance the exploits and end up with one or two that is really good but the alternate casting system being the real thing for the Wizard 2.0 as it looks now.
There is of cause other ways this can og and

[Snorter]

JRutterbush wrote:

That said, I agree that the language of Spell Tinkerer needs to be changed. Personally, I would just limit it to be able to modify a given spell only once.

It also needs, really needs to require a caster level check.

As written, a PC can bring a level 1 Arcanist follower, who can cut the duration of the Grand Evil High Wizard Lord's spells in half, and there's nothing he can do about it.

Or they can make their master, or one of his allies, immune to the enemy's barriers and wards, for 1 AR per spell, and have them march through and slaughter the guy.

It'd be funny once, but I wouldn't want to see it every session.

Dispelling requires a caster level check, Tinkering ought to require one as well.

[andreww]

Snorter wrote:

Or they can make their master, or one of his allies, immune to the enemy's barriers and wards, for 1 AR per spell, and have them march through and slaughter the guy.

Only if the ward or spell directly effects them. You couldn't walk through a wall of force (it has no target in its effect line) but you could suppress a slow spell.

[JRutterbush]

andreww wrote:

Snorter wrote:

Or they can make their master, or one of his allies, immune to the enemy's barriers and wards, for 1 AR per spell, and have them march through and slaughter the guy.

Only if the ward or spell directly effects them. You couldn't walk through a wall of force (it has no target in its effect line) but you could suppress a slow spell.

Spell Tinkerer targets spell effects, not just spells that are affecting creatures. A Wall of Force is a spell effect.

[Snorter]

It doesn't stipulate any particular type of spell, only that it can't be instantaneous or permanent.

I'd happily walk safely through a prismatic wall, for 1 AR.

[Tels]

For those unaware, there was a podcast last night by Know Direction with Jason Bulmahn as a guest and they talked about the Advanced Class Guide and the playtest and spoilered some of the upcoming changes to the classes.

There is a thread with mine, and others', notes here: Podcast Notes.

[LazarX]

Scimmy wrote:

Scimmy wrote:

Ah so as is the arcanist is fairly powerful in PFS....however it is very much not so in regular play. I do think it should be noted how it works in PFS, but arcanist should not be nerfed because of PFS play options.

Note I did say tell us how it works, but the important part is in bold. PFS is not what we should be balancing to, because in regular play (non-PFS), unless your DM is hand waving a lot for you consume magic items is not going to work in its current for . So people talking about how powerful it is or can be in PFS are going to give the devs an incorrect view of how it works.

PFS play is not something that can be ignored... because of two big reasons.

1. It is probably the largest marketing tool for the game.

2. There are a crapton of PFS players. In fact the vast majority of Pathfinder played in this area, quite possibly the country as well, is through PFS.

[Tels]

PFS will take care of itself, and will have it's own rules on how the Arcanist is played.

Balance the core mechanics of the class, and let PFS balance itself as it always has.

[Scimmy]

Tels wrote:

PFS will take care of itself, and will have it's own rules on how the Arcanist is played.

Balance the core mechanics of the class, and let PFS balance itself as it always has.

This

[Prince of Knives]

Tels wrote:

PFS will take care of itself, and will have it's own rules on how the Arcanist is played.

Balance the core mechanics of the class, and let PFS balance itself as it always has.

Pretty much this. As I've mentioned before, PFS uses house rules; balance problems are on THEM, not on US. We can't balance for PFS any more than I can insist that people balance for my house rules. If I give unlimited ammo that's my problem, not Paizo's.

[Cheapy]

As an idea, limiting the points gained per day by Consumed Magic Item to your twice Charisma modifier might be a useful limit, and a huge anti-cheese factor.

People are going to find ways to top off their pool with this exploit. Limiting it to twice your Charisma times per day with would go a long way to future-proofing this class.

Or maybe Charisma mod times per day, per item type (staff/wand/potion/scroll).

[Scavion]

Cheapy wrote:

As an idea, limiting the points gained per day by Consumed Magic Item to your twice Charisma modifier might be a useful limit, and a huge anti-cheese factor.

People are going to find ways to top off their pool with this exploit. Limiting it to twice your Charisma times per day with would go a long way to future-proofing this class.

Or maybe Charisma mod times per day, per item type (staff/wand/potion/scroll).

I think twice Charisma mod would be really good for the class and give it a reason to up their charisma.

And tone down the cheese =P

[The black raven]

Cheapy wrote:

As an idea, limiting the points gained per day by Consumed Magic Item to your twice Charisma modifier might be a useful limit, and a huge anti-cheese factor.

People are going to find ways to top off their pool with this exploit. Limiting it to twice your Charisma times per day with would go a long way to future-proofing this class.

Or maybe Charisma mod times per day, per item type (staff/wand/potion/scroll).

Way I see it, this would polarize the class in two builds :

- The "eater of magic", CHA-based and focussed pretty much exclusively on exploits, maybe even to the point of dumping INT

- The "scholar of magic", INT-based and focussed on spells. Which actually feels like a lesser Wizard with some interesting side abilities (the exploits)

Not saying that this would be a bad thing per se, but I feel that it would be better for the class to inherently allow a continuum of CHA/INT mixes rather than focus on the extremes.

Come to think of it, I feel that this polarization is the main obstacle the class should avoid.

[Scimmy]

Cheapy wrote:

As an idea, limiting the points gained per day by Consumed Magic Item to your twice Charisma modifier might be a useful limit, and a huge anti-cheese factor.

People are going to find ways to top off their pool with this exploit. Limiting it to twice your Charisma times per day with would go a long way to future-proofing this class.

Or maybe Charisma mod times per day, per item type (staff/wand/potion/scroll).

The problem is consume magic item just isn't good....unless you are playing PFS and using a staff or two. The runestones, as already pointed out, can't actually be used for your AR, rather you can turn spells into points then use the stones later to cast spells. Any other item just isn't worth it from a monetary standpoint. And you can bet limiting magic items that add to the AR is high on the priority list of the devs so as to not make this class OP. Don't nerf a cool and thematic ability that isn't very good already. Not only is it very expensive, but you lose any points you don't use the next day....this ability doesn't need any more limits placed on it, it need to be retooled to be useful and worth taking.

[Scavion]

Scimmy wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

As an idea, limiting the points gained per day by Consumed Magic Item to your twice Charisma modifier might be a useful limit, and a huge anti-cheese factor.

People are going to find ways to top off their pool with this exploit. Limiting it to twice your Charisma times per day with would go a long way to future-proofing this class.

Or maybe Charisma mod times per day, per item type (staff/wand/potion/scroll).

The problem is consume magic item just isn't good....unless you are playing PFS and using a staff or two. The runestones, as already pointed out, can't actually be used for your AR, rather you can turn spells into points then use the stones later to cast spells. Any other item just isn't worth it from a monetary standpoint. And you can bet limiting magic items that add to the AR is high on the priority list of the devs so as to not make this class OP. Don't nerf a cool and thematic ability that isn't very good already. Not only is it very expensive, but you lose any points you don't use the next day....this ability doesn't need any more limits placed on it, it need to be retooled to be useful and worth taking.

I think the point is that its not supposed to be always a good option to consume your items.

I think you guys are missing on the whole desperation factor =P

[redward]

Scavion wrote:

Scimmy wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

As an idea, limiting the points gained per day by Consumed Magic Item to your twice Charisma modifier might be a useful limit, and a huge anti-cheese factor.

People are going to find ways to top off their pool with this exploit. Limiting it to twice your Charisma times per day with would go a long way to future-proofing this class.

Or maybe Charisma mod times per day, per item type (staff/wand/potion/scroll).

The problem is consume magic item just isn't good....unless you are playing PFS and using a staff or two. The runestones, as already pointed out, can't actually be used for your AR, rather you can turn spells into points then use the stones later to cast spells. Any other item just isn't worth it from a monetary standpoint. And you can bet limiting magic items that add to the AR is high on the priority list of the devs so as to not make this class OP. Don't nerf a cool and thematic ability that isn't very good already. Not only is it very expensive, but you lose any points you don't use the next day....this ability doesn't need any more limits placed on it, it need to be retooled to be useful and worth taking.

I think the point is that its not supposed to be always a good option to consume your items.

I think you guys are missing on the whole desperation factor =P

Exactly. It's for the times when eating your Scroll of Break Enchantment is worth it so you can Disrupt the enemy's Anti-life shell and let your melee in to attack. Or whatever.

[Scimmy]

redward wrote:

Scavion wrote:

I think the point is that its not supposed to be always a good option to consume your items.

I think you guys are missing on the whole desperation factor =P

Exactly. It's for the times when eating your Scroll of Break Enchantment is worth it so you can Disrupt the enemy's Anti-life shell and let your melee in to attack. Or whatever.

I have to completely disagree. Who would design something they don't expect you to use? The idea is you are supposed to be able to use it. The more logical assumption is that because the Arcanist revision was a rush job they made something they thought would work and tossed it to us. With time and our comments they will most likely alter it to make it more useable.

It is something you grab as an exploit, which means its one of the ways your character has learned to tinker with the normal magics of the world. It's meant to be used, it's just an infant version. With time and attention the devs will help it mature into an adult contributing member of the class. It's not an "emergency only" ability, or you wouldn't have to pick it as an exploit, it would be given like consume spells is.