| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The boards were full of people demanding a spontaneous casting magus archetype. The devs listened, and gave them what they wanted. It's not like they took away the original class, and the wagonful of archetypes that already existed for it.
Some folks need to get their heads around the idea that player books are written for players who might not neccessarily be looking for the same thing they re.
Like Slashing grace, people are not complaining that it was done, but that it was poorly done.
The designers are not doing us a favor, they're trying to sell a product. Players have the right to find the final product unsatisfactory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The boards were full of people demanding a spontaneous casting magus archetype.
True.
The devs listened, and gave them what they wanted.
False. I'm pretty sure none of those people asked to lose a buttload of class features and have the casting stat inexplicably changed to Cha.
Beside everything else, the Eldritch Scion is the 6 level caster class with the least skill points, since it retains 2+Int skills (meant to be the drawback for being Int based) but has less incentive to (and build room for) Intelligence. That's just silly.
What people asked for was a Spontaneous Magus.
What they got was something that is not as good as the base Magus (seriously, can only use Spell Combat while expending a limited, non-renewable resource, as a Swift action until 8th? Who thought that was a good idea?), with random class features that nobody really wanted and actively hnder the ability to be a Magus. It's essentially a new class at this point, and not one that's worth using.
Was it REALLY so hard, was it REALLY so much to ask for, to make the archetype gain Spont casting and maybe a Bloodline in exchange for something like Magus Arcana at X levels (3, 9, 12, 15, and 18 at worst) if they HAD to work Bloodrager stuff into it?
It's not like they took away the original class, and the wagonful of archetypes that already existed for it.
Which is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it's not good.
"Here's the sandwich you ordered."
"I asked for a BLT, this appears to be a Reuben of some kind."
"Well, too bad, it's not like the fact that you didn't get what you wanted makes all the other sandwiches on Earth disappear."
Some folks need to get their heads around the idea that player books are written for players who might not neccessarily be looking for the same thing they re.
Seriously make up your mind. Did the book give people "what they asked for" or is it made for these nebulous "other players"?
All I ask for is some consistency.
|
Eh, much as Eldritch Scion might not be the best thing ever, I think people are seriously undervaluing it here. Gaining a full Bloodrager Bloodline with all that implies is really cool, and allows you to do some really nice stuff. It's not perfect, and perhaps not as generic as the Archetype people were hoping for, but it looks pretty darn good for some stuff. I can see all kinds of ridiculousness with a Destined Bloodline one, for example.
It is notably better if you allow Extra Arcane Pool to apply and be used with Eldritch Pool, of course...something almost certainly not technically legal. But still, very workable if you use it properly, especially at high levels.
Eh, much as Eldritch Scion might not be the best thing ever, I think people are seriously undervaluing it here. Gaining a full Bloodrager Bloodline with all that implies is really cool, and allows you to do some really nice stuff. It's not perfect, and perhaps not as generic as the Archetype people were hoping for, but it looks pretty darn good for some stuff. I can see all kinds of ridiculousness with a Destined Bloodline one, for example.
It is notably better if you allow Extra Arcane Pool to apply and be used with Eldritch Pool, of course...something almost certainly not technically legal. But still, very workable if you use it properly, especially at high levels.
It's pretty awful, actually... It's too dependent on a resource that is too scarce. It can't even use its defining class feature without spending a very limited resource.
At low levels, an Eldritch Scion will most likely be unable to use Spell Combat 4-6 rounds a day.
The archetype is a good idea idea, but the execution was horrible.
Worst of all... Because of this abomination, now we'll never have a good spontaneous magus archetype. :/
|
|
It's pretty awful, actually... It's too dependent on a resource that is too scarce. It can even use its most iconic class feature without spending it.
This is mostly true. But...it's not as scarce a resource as all that, especially at higher levels. It does pretty thoroughly restrict them from the other uses of Arcane Pool except in emergencies...but that's not the end of the world, just a different way to do things.
At low levels, an Eldritch Scion will most likely be unable to use Spell Combat 4-6 rounds a day.
I'd expect more like 8 or so, at least with decent stats. That's not too many...but that's at 2nd level, when they're only gonna have a handful of 1st level spells anyway. It screws up the Spell Combat/Arcane Mark trick, but that just makes Maguses even burstier than they already were...which is maybe not ideal, but not the end of the world.
The archetype is a good idea idea, but the execution was horrible.
It's mediocre, but IMO horrible seems a stretch.
Worst of all... Because of this abomination, now we'll never have a good spontaneous magus archetype. :/
Eh, it could happen.
Well, after doing an in-depth analysis of all the new hybrid classes, I figure I might as well throw in my 2 cents...
Arcanist-I know a lot of people have stated that this class can make the sorcerer (and maybe even the wizard) obsolete, but to be honest, I just don't see it. Granted, some of the archetypes are very strong (Occultist for summoning monsters as a standard anyone?), but there are still a lot of neat tricks that a sorcerer can pull off (animal companion from Sylvan bloodline for example). I certainly wouldn't call this class overpowered yet, at least no more so than any other spellcaster. 7/10
Bloodrager-This thing is a beauty, but in some ways almost makes the barbarian obsolete (at least if you add the 'primalist' archetype). The sheer amount of extra versatility from this class is staggering, and as far as I'm concerned, taking the 'crossblooded' archetype is almost required (it just opens up SOOO many more options). It certainly is nice to finally have a spontaneous caster with a full BAB, so this particular class is a welcomed addition. 9/10
Hunter-At first I wasn't impressed with this class, but after trying out a couple of builds, I have to say that its actually pretty good. Granted, the spell list feels a little clunky at times, but the overall synergy with the animal companion is simply astounding. Archetypes like 'primal hunter companion' and 'divine hunter' are the icing on the cake, and the class actually has the potential to fill a lot of party roles (support, archery, healer, and melee combatant just to name a few). 8/10
Shaman-This class was a bit confusing at first, but once I started messing with it, I pretty much concluded that its kinda like a swiss army knife. Most of the hexes add versatility, and the spell list and wandering hexes are also solid options. I get the feeling that the class should mainly be used for support, healer, or melee combatant purposes, but I'm sure other options are also available. 8/10
Investigator-Versatility for the win, but I would have liked to see bombs (or at least an archetype that gave them). I can't really complain about the class, so its mostly just okay for me. 7/10
Slayer-I know a lot of people like this class, but honestly it just feels kinda mundane. I'm not saying its weak or anything, but most of the options just feel a little generic and stale (bonus feats for the win mostly). Its certainly a nice addition, but its just not for me. 7/10
Swashbuckler-I honestly have no idea why people hate on this class. Granted, its not a mobile monster, but I really do think there's a lot of enjoyment to be had. The 'inspired blade' archetype is REALLY strong as well, and the fact that one-handed weapon builds are getting some love is really refreshing in my opion. 9/10
Warpriest-I have to admit that this class REALLY didn't do it for me. Everytime I look at it I can't help but say "why would I ever play this over an inquisitor, oracle, or cleric. 4/10
Skald-This class really just feels like an archetye to me. I will admit that it does have some unique qualities, but the archetypes all feel very watered down, and it doesn't really different from your standard battle bard. 6/10
Brawler-Kinda neat, but kinda dull. I'm sort of one the fence with this one, but like the slayer, I don't really find it all that unique. Mutagenic Mauler and Wild Child are cool, but the class once again feels like an archetype. 6/10
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eldritch Scion (Magus Archetype): I got really excited for this archetype at first, but then I started reading. Did the designer not understand that swapping prepared Intelligence casting for spontaneous Charisma casting is actually a bad trade that's only desireable for character concept purposes? Yet they felt the class needed to be punished for this "incredible" boon by removing spell recall, adding a pointless secondary resource pool, and forcing you to waste arcane pool points just to use your primary class feature. To add insult to injury, this terrible archetype and two arcana are the only material my favorite class got out of this book.Agreed 100%.The boards were full of people demanding a spontaneous casting magus archetype. The devs listened, and gave them what they wanted. It's not like they took away the original class, and the wagonful of archetypes that already existed for it.
Some folks need to get their heads around the idea that player books are written for players who might not neccessarily be looking for the same thing they re.
That's not the case. Eldritch Scion is simply poor quality content. It's badly designed, and people paid money for it. Eldritch scion is poorly designed because:
1) The archetype does not make straight trades, which is a basic guideline of archetype design that's even mentioned in this very same book.
2) The archetype replaces spell recall, one of the magus's most powerful class features, for an ability that does nothing by itself.
3) The designer forgot to replace improved recall, which means the magus still gets spell recall. I doubt this was intentional, because the ability requires the magus to prepare a spell before they can recall it.
4) The archetype adds a new resource pool for no good reason that raises a lot of mechanical questions.
5) Spending eldritch pool points creates action economy problems that the designer obviously didn't think about.
6) The archetype forces the magus to spend points and swift actions just to use their primary class feature. This does nothing but make the class unfun to play.
7) The archetype adds needlessly complicated mechanics designed to make the class more restricting to play rather than more fun to play.
Yeah, every archetype has its flaws, but well designed archetype will shine through. Bolt Ace is a good example. The designer forgot to replace battered gun, but people still love the archetype. It gave what they wanted and provided some very fun abilities. An errata can fix Bolt Ace's flaws, but Eldritch Scion would require an entire rewrite.
All in all, it's a really bad archetype because whoever designed it decided to make it unnecessarily complex. The whole ACG could have benefited from devs remembering to "KISS" ("Keep It Simple, Stupid").
I'd like to add that keeping things simple has many upsides. For example, if they kept Eldritch Scion simple, there would be enough space on the page to add another archetype or more arcana. They could have split the archetype into two: one for Cha-casting and another to gain the benefits of a bloodrager bloodline by spending arcane pool points. Look at that page! The eldritch pool feature uses up 20% of the page.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Design Manager
|
Yeah, every archetype has its flaws, but well designed archetype will shine through. Bolt Ace is a good example. The designer forgot to replace battered gun, but people still love the archetype. It gave what they wanted and provided some very fun abilities. An errata can fix Bolt Ace's flaws, but Eldritch Scion would require an entire rewrite.
Very much this.
I can live with typos and/or small errors, but it's a bigger issue when an archetype is flawed through to its very core, especially when it occupies a highly desired niche. Paizo tends not to create content that invalidates their own products, so when they release a subpar version of something that means that you're unlikely to see a better version, unless it contains some pretty substantial variations on the idea.That was one of my big disappointments with almost all of the Hunter archetypes. I loved the Hunter, and the archetypes definitely had a place in the game, but the execution didn't deliver on the idea, and/or varied so far from the base class that it lost what should have made it special.
The Feral Hunter has a class feature called "Solitary" but later gains a class ability called "Pack Tactics", which is a little thematically jarring but wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the class worked. Unfortunately, it then proceeds to gut every other feature of the Hunter out of the class to replace it with a pair of horribly subpar abilities. You get Feral Focus, which may or may not actually stack with the limited Wild Shape you gain later due to some terrible wording choices, and Summon Pack, which locks you into a specific type of summon and doesn't benefit from the normal reduction in casting time and increase in duration that a normal Hunter gets since that's part of the AnC class feature the Feral Hunter trades away. Just awful.
Divine Hunter has the same issue as the Celestial Servant feat; it grants SR without a built-in way for the master to bypass it like the Summoner gets, so you're having to burn serious action economy to cast buff spells on your companion.
Packmaster suffers the normal issues of that type of build related to having multiple weak creatures on the field, plus making it even more expensive and prohibitive to actually take advantage of the increased numbers since only one of them is getting your Teamwork feats.
There were a lot of good ideas that just didn't get good execution in the book. I know they were on crunch time and all, but man...
The good news is that there's probably at least 4 solid class or archetype options for any player. Everyone should be able to find something that really leaps out at them as something they wanted in this book. When I lament anything, it's less for it being straight up terrible, and more for it failing to live up to the hypothetical potential of the idea behind it.
Hunter, Investigator, Daring Champion, Ecclesitheurge, Bolt Ace, and Vanguard pretty much justified this purchase for me, which is a positive. I can certainly name other books (not just in Pathfinder) that didn't leave me with at least 6 solid and unique character concepts that I'm excited to play.
I don't get the claims that arcanists are broken. Is it because they can counterspell and dispel better than a sorcerer or wizard? That they can potentially infinitely basically dimension door? All those seem minor except maybe the counterspell as frequent counterspells can be annoying. But, if that's all it does other than blast then it actually reads quite boring to me.
|
Design Manager
|
Is Ecclesitheurge any good?, I have not number crunched it, but it seems to be missing an important class feature.
It is missing a class feature that probably would have made a big positive difference, but there are still a lot of viable builds you can derive from it. Since they're transformed into a strict SAD caster you get more out of options like Channel Smite + Guided Hand. Higher WIS means more bonus spells, which combos up nicely with his floating domain and -Bonded Holy Symbol. You just need to be sure you've got the right defensive spells prepped. Snagging something like the Plant Domain or Defense Subdomain (or whatever other domain(s) you might have available that provide defensive options) for your floating domain can go a long way. Asmodean clerics (for example) can get a big boost from this archetype since they have access to things like the Deception subdomain which can give them useful non-AC defenses that can be shifted out when the predominant threats are physical instead of magical. Clerics of Erastil can sub in Plant for barkskin to boost their defensive options, or drop it for Archon and back that up with a few normally prepared protection from evil spells if the enemies are predominantly ones covered by that spell.
It's a little more technical to get the most out of it, but technical is what prepared casters are best at anyways. There's a whole wealth of things you can do, including the (probably preferable) option of forgoing AC concerns entirely and using control and other spells for non-traditional defense.I don't get the claims that arcanists are broken. Is it because they can counterspell and dispel better than a sorcerer or wizard? That they can potentially infinitely basically dimension door? All those seem minor except maybe the counterspell as frequent counterspells can be annoying. But, if that's all it does other than blast then it actually reads quite boring to me.
They're not. They've got a couple cool tricks that suck resources like crazy (counterspelling more than once or twice a combat has a prohibitively high cost in resources), and a unique casting mechanic. They're basically the training wheels version of the arcane caster, which creates the impression that they're better than they really are. Their learning curve isn't as steep as the Wizard's can be so even a new player should be able to make a decent Arcanist. It's more of a perception thing than an actual power thing.
The biggest thing is that the Arcanist novas so much more easily. You can probably make an Arcanist who's more effective for the length of a single encounter than a Wizard or Sorcerer, but if you're following the normal 3-5 combat encounter + 1-3 social/exploration encounter expectations of the game he'll pay for being so awesome in that one fight by being markedly less awesome in either the subsequent or preceding combats.
I don't get the claims that arcanists are broken. Is it because they can counterspell and dispel better than a sorcerer or wizard? That they can potentially infinitely basically dimension door? All those seem minor except maybe the counterspell as frequent counterspells can be annoying. But, if that's all it does other than blast then it actually reads quite boring to me.
Mainly an issue of stepping on the sorcerer's toes.
1) The ability to spend a point to increase a spell's CL or DC is a huge boon that neither the wizard nor the sorcerer have.
2) It's easy for an arcanist to get the class features of the sorcerer and wizard. They can get a school or bloodline either by using one exploit and a pool point, or sacrifice 4 exploits using an archetype. They can also get familiars and an arcane bonded item, too.
3) The exploits are consistently more powerful than most bloodline/school powers. You raise a good point with the counterspell as an immediate action. The wizard with the counterspell subschool can't do that until 6th level and can only do that once per day.
4) Arcanists have all of the strengths of the sorcerer, but not really any of their weaknesses. Even the limit on prepared slots can be overcome using an exploit. With quick study, the arcanist is basically a schrodinger wizard.
Personally, I don't think the arcanist is broken, but the class muddies the waters. The book does not adequately illustrate the trade-offs between playing each of the three classes and the niche they each fill. I do agree the arcanist is more powerful than the sorcerer, but I also believe the sorcerer was underpowered to begin with. At least the sorcerer still has the most spell slots in the game.
On an unrelated note, I'm not sure why people consider the arcanist a good "beginners" spellcaster when they have to keep track of four resources: spell slots, spells prepared, spells known in spellbook, and arcane points.
I think the ACG as a whole is power creep. That you're taking two classes and putting them together with years of refinement on top of providing archetypes, feats, and spells to support them, the end result is basically gestalt without needing gestalt rules. I was *just* talking to a friend how the investigator is more skilly than the bard investigator and they were the previous kings of skills. The empiricist archetype makes that just more pronounced. Then, they take the rogue sneak attack, reflavor it, and let you do it at will with just a move action. It's all power creep. I would put the ACG to the player who is unhappy with the floor of power the CRB represents while maintaining the ceiling of the wizard. I can see what you mean by the arcanist being Schrodinger's wizard, though, so I'm tempted to even say they creeped on the wizard, too.
|
Design Manager
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On an unrelated note, I'm not sure why people consider the arcanist a good "beginners" spellcaster when they have to keep track of four resources: spell slots, spells prepared, spells known in spellbook, and arcane points.
Spells known in spellbook isn't something most new players are going to have to worry about during actual play, so it's not competing with time and mental resources at the table.
Spell Slots and Spells prepared is actually very natural for new players. They use the same mechanic in 5e and I've had players who never played a wizard in Pathfinder because they were too worried about how important there selections were and how badly it could go wrong take to it immediately.
The Arcanist is much more forgiving to new players than the wizard. If the wizard prepares 4 spells and only one of them is worthwhile, he's pretty much s.o.l. If the Arcanist only has one decent spell prepped for the encounter he faced, he's good because much like the Sorcerer, he can just spam the good spell. Unlike the Sorcerer, he can then trade out the spells that weren't useful. Again, very forgiving.
The class doesn't leave new players feeling like they're stupid or stuck with choices they made when they didn't know any better. The flip side is that the class has far fewer spells at most levels than its counterparts since the Sorcerer has half again as many spells and the Wizard is gaining his next level of spells sooner, but for most new players that's all right. They've still got exploits and cantrips to keep them feeling "magical".
They may take to the cool nova tricks like Counterspelling, but if they actually get those they're probably already graduating from beginner to intermediate and they should have picked up enough of the game to understand that using a resource consuming technique like that is going to have consequences in subsequent encounters that they'll have to deal with.
Basically, the Arcanist leaves a player room to learn all the ins and outs of the game (much better than the Fighter who teaches only one aspect and doesn't help them learn about buffs, durations, resource management, or real teamwork), while being flexible and forgiving enough that they can learn from their mistakes without feeling punished.
I think the ACG as a whole is power creep.
I would disagree. The most powerful spells and classes are still right in the CRB. The book may have elevated the floor a bit and introduced classes that are harder to f#&* up and archetypes and feats that help shore up the obvious weaknesses of pre-existing classes, but that's not creep, that's making the game more accessible to a wider audience.
I think the ACG as a whole is power creep. That you're taking two classes and putting them together with years of refinement on top of providing archetypes, feats, and spells to support them, the end result is basically gestalt without needing gestalt rules. I was *just* talking to a friend how the investigator is more skilly than the bard investigator and they were the previous kings of skills. The empiricist archetype makes that just more pronounced. Then, they take the rogue sneak attack, reflavor it, and let you do it at will with just a move action. It's all power creep. I would put the ACG to the player who is unhappy with the floor of power the CRB represents while maintaining the ceiling of the wizard. I can see what you mean by the arcanist being Schrodinger's wizard, though, so I'm tempted to even say they creeped on the wizard, too.
I think some power creep is okay and necessary if controlled well. Pathfinder isn't like an online video game where the developer can simply patch or completely redo a character class to keep it in line. The sorcerer and all martial classes in the CRB were underpowered. I believe most would consider the slayer as good power creep. It "fixes" the rogue, but still leaves room for Paizo to let the rogue have its own niche in Pathfinder Unchained. I feel the same way for ACG's content as a whole -- power creep occurs where it's appropriate.
The arcanist hurts the niche of the sorcerer and wizard while possessing unique abilities that neither of them can do. While the investigator has great skill usage, the bard still has their own niche. Even if you took options that let each class steal from the other, the bard and investigator will still play differently and have their own strengths. Not so much with the sorcerer and wizard. The big difference between choosing to play a sorcerer, wizard, or arcanist is whether you want spontaneous casting, prepared casting, or a mixture of the two. And the one that gets a mixture gets the best of both worlds and can steal goodies from the other two while still retaining their own unique powers.
You're way downplaying the other features of the sorcerers and wizards, Cyrad. The arcanist can not get the higher school or bloodlines powers. Those can go a long way in making a build powerful. The creep part is on Schrondinger-ability of wizard style preparation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts on the hybrid classes?
Well, I haven't had a chance to go through all of them just yet, because... I'm a huge, HUGE fan of mages. I love them. I love them to my core. I always prefer to play a caster of some kind if possible; failing that, rogue or some other kind of skill-based class, etc. I have yet to roll up and playtest the Bloodrager, Skald, etc, but I will say they seem like fun classes to play.
However, I've been too preoccupied with the Arcanist. Reason being, it angers me. Greatly.
It's not that it's overpowered - I've rolled up a lv1 Arcanist and Wizard using similar stats and was able to make them approximately equal in power level. And that's the problem. It can do about 85% of what a Wizard of the same level can do, only with Exploits to do some of those things better. In fact, many of the Exploits seem to exist solely to close any weaknesses or gaps that the Arcanist has in her abilities compared to the Core classes, which doesn't sit well with me or anyone in my group.
On top of that, you have the Archetypes that allow them to perform the basic functions of the Magus, the Witch, and even the Cleric to a point (the spontaneous healing and whatnot). It seems it's designed to step on the toes of almost half a dozen different classes. Some even borrow a couple abilities from the Paladin (enhance weapon), or even...
Okay, I'll be honest, this irritated me more than it should, but it bothers me, a lot, that the Magus archetype of the Arcanist can take... Weapon Specialization. I'm sorry, but... nobody can take that. Nobody. Doesn't matter how good your Barbarian is with her great-axe, she can't take Specialization. ONLY the Fighter can, designed to stack with Weapon Training to give him the most solid, dependable attack and damage bonus you can find in the Core.
...until the Arcanist comes along.
I'm sorry, but duplicating the effects of many other classes, including a couple fragments of martial classes?
Who the [expletive] does the Arcanist think she is??
I'll be going over the other classes soon, because I'm done with the Arcanist. She has earned the dubious honor of being the first Paizo published class to be banned in our gaming group, an agreement that was unanimous upon reading and discussing the class features (and simulating level-ups with similar stats between the Arcanist and other classes*) Not necessarily because she's too powerful, but because she can essentially replace the core features of too many of the base classes.
*By which I mean we used the same stat "pool" to generate the character; for the record, we rolled 16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10. While the Wizard began with 18 INT, we gave the Arcanist 16 INT/CHA, assuming a Human +2 bonus. We didn't want to use races that affected a large number of stats to minimize alterations to the base rolls, which were good enough as it was.
I'll end this post with a brief paragraph from the ACG, pp. 240-41, where they helpfully give advice on designing your own classes:
In addition to having a strong concept, each class should also have a space in the rules that it can occupy. While the rules for a class can share some similarities with those of an existing class, each new class should have something that makes it unusual, giving it a means to interact with the game, and the game's world, in a new and interesting way.
Look for a way that the class can perform its role without coming into contact with the rules of another class. If the rules are too close, you might end up with a class that invalidates (or is invalidated by) an existing class's mechanics in a way that makes it unappealing to play.For example, the rogue class focuses on moving unseen and striking foes in precisely the right spot to make it hurt. While there are certainly other classes that have rules that allow them to sneak or hit for a lot of damage, the way that the rogue goes about it - via sneak attack - is iconic to that class. You want to avoid creating mechanics to do the same thing in slightly different ways.
I would disagree. The most powerful spells and classes are still right in the CRB. The book may have elevated the floor a bit and introduced classes that are harder to f~@! up and archetypes and feats that help shore up the obvious weaknesses of pre-existing classes, but that's not creep, that's making the game more accessible to a wider audience.
That's only because the CRB was published first which book ends the power of an individual thing a character can do. The ACG feels more like the classes the CRB perhaps should have been.
FYI, elevation is explicity creep. You say you disagree, then you just use different words than me to say the same thing couched in terms of accessibility. Mind you it wasn't just floors that were elevated. Cielings were pushed as well. The arcanist gives a flexibility no one has in the CRB or other materials with full casting progression. I just call it what it is. You appear to being taking the more PR angle to it.
Okay, I'll be honest, this irritated me more than it should, but it bothers me, a lot, that the Magus archetype of the Arcanist can take... Weapon Specialization. I'm sorry, but... nobody can take that. Nobody. Doesn't matter how good your Barbarian is with her great-axe, she can't take Specialization. ONLY the Fighter can, designed to stack with Weapon Training to give him the most solid, dependable attack and damage bonus you can find in the Core.
There are a few archetypes of various classes, plus the core Magus off the top of my head but I know there are others, that can also take Weapon Specialization, usually only with a slight level delay. It hasn't been exclusive to Fighters for quite some time.
|
Design Manager
|
You're way downplaying the other features of the sorcerers and wizards, Cyrad. The arcanist can not get the higher school or bloodlines powers. Those can go a long way in making a build powerful.
And every exploit the Arcanist spends to dip into the entry level Sorcerer or Wizard goodies is an exploit not being spent on his own unique stuff. Plus the whole reduced slots and available spell levels aspect of things.
And some of their best abilities are risky. Quick Study, the "silver bullet" ability, requires you to spend a full-round action that provokes studying your spellbook to swap in a spell. That means you have to either have your spellbook already in hand or spend at least a move action drawing it out. There's that thing people who don't actually know the game like to say about how you can sunder the Wizard's spellbook to take away his effectiveness. In the case of the Arcanist, that's actually true if you're reliant on this ability.
You've also got to look at what you actually have room for. If you're grabbing the best exploits you'll probably take Counterspell, Quick Study, Metamagic Knowledge, Metamixing, whoops! out of lesser Exploits, but we've still got greaters open so we'll take Greater Counterspell, Greater Metamagic Knowledge, Counter Drain (because otherwise we'll never have enough points to sustain our abilities), and that leaves us with only two exploits. Most people would rather spend that on Dimensional Slide and either Spell Disruption or Swift Consume than dipping into things that the other classes got for free. And the Arcanist is still short on spells, feats, and other abilities gained by the parent classes, even with his cool exploits, the best of which are going to be burning up his slots and resevoir simultaneously causing him to need to play even more conservatively if he wants to be useful for more than one fight a day.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'll be honest, this irritated me more than it should, but it bothers me, a lot, that the Magus archetype of the Arcanist can take... Weapon Specialization. I'm sorry, but... nobody can take that. Nobody. Doesn't matter how good your Barbarian is with her great-axe, she can't take Specialization. ONLY the Fighter can, designed to stack with Weapon Training to give him the most solid, dependable attack and damage bonus you can find in the Core.There are a few archetypes of various classes, plus the core Magus off the top of my head but I know there are others, that can also take Weapon Specialization, usually only with a slight level delay. It hasn't been exclusive to Fighters for quite some time.
Samurai can grab it for select weapons, the Magus can grab it, I'm fairly certain there are other archetypes that get it... The reality though is that there's not much reason for classes who aren't the Fighter to blow one of their few feats on a +2 to damage when there's probably a lot of other things that are going to serve them better, especially since many of them can't grab it until later levels. It's one of those "you could, but why?" things. I do agree that I've never been a big fan of the way that Fighter specific feats, basically class features, have been handed out to other classes. You don't see them handing out other classes features... Unless they're the Rogue, in which case they give them away as traits :)
Okay, I'll be honest, this irritated me more than it should, but it bothers me, a lot, that the Magus archetype of the Arcanist can take... Weapon Specialization. I'm sorry, but... nobody can take that. Nobody. Doesn't matter how good your Barbarian is with her great-axe, she can't take Specialization. ONLY the Fighter can, designed to stack with Weapon Training to give him the most solid, dependable attack and damage bonus you can find in the Core.There are a few archetypes of various classes, plus the core Magus off the top of my head but I know there are others, that can also take Weapon Specialization, usually only with a slight level delay. It hasn't been exclusive to Fighters for quite some time.
EDIT: No, the Magus does NOT get Weapon Specialization, in fact...
EDIT 2: Actually, I'm hard-pressed to find these archetypes. Where are you finding this?
|
Design Manager
|
Okay, I'll be honest, this irritated me more than it should, but it bothers me, a lot, that the Magus archetype of the Arcanist can take... Weapon Specialization. I'm sorry, but... nobody can take that. Nobody. Doesn't matter how good your Barbarian is with her great-axe, she can't take Specialization. ONLY the Fighter can, designed to stack with Weapon Training to give him the most solid, dependable attack and damage bonus you can find in the Core.There are a few archetypes of various classes, plus the core Magus off the top of my head but I know there are others, that can also take Weapon Specialization, usually only with a slight level delay. It hasn't been exclusive to Fighters for quite some time.Looking that up, I can see you're right. I can concede that point, at least... but what the rest of this class does is quite ludicrous.
EDIT: No, the Magus does NOT get Weapon Specialization, in fact...
He really does.
He gets Fighter Training at 10th level that allows him to count 1/2 his Magus levels as class levels, so he can qualify for Weapon Specialization or a number of other Fighter-only feats.
EDIT: No, the Magus does NOT get Weapon Specialization, in fact...
Fighter Training (Ex): Starting at 10th level, a magus counts 1/2 his total magus level as his fighter level for the purpose of qualifying for feats. If he has levels in fighter, these levels stack.
Meaning as soon as he gets this ability he's considered a 5th-level Fighter for purposes of gaining Fighter feats, presuming he hasn't multiclassed. Immediately qualifies for WeapSpec.
Search for the phrase "Fighter Training" or similar, it shows up semi-often. Any class/archetype that gets it can pick up Fighter-only feats.
Level 10 magus totally can get weapon spec.
Dogpile on arioth!
Oh, okay. I see that. Alright, fine. Whatever.
Rest of my post still applies; the Arcanist still essentially plays the "me too!" game with about... four other classes by major extent (Wiz, Sorc, Witch, Magus), Cleric by lesser extent, and bits and pieces of the Paladin and Fighter to boot. Again, I state, this does not need to exist. At our table, it doesn't. Will be looking into the other hybrid classes later; at least at first glance they look less ridiculous.
*shrug* To each their own I suppose. I love the Arcanist personally, it gives me everything I want out of the Wizard and nothing I don't. I'll probably never touch a Wizard NPC again without rebuilding them.
|
Design Manager
|
Some of the Magus archetypes even get it sooner, like the Kensai and Myrmidarch who get it at 7th level and use their Magus level -3 as their Fighter level.
I already mentioned the Samurai gets to count his class levels as Fighter levels for his selected weapon...
The Brawler and Warpriest in their entirety can select Fighter only feats like Weapon Specialization.
I'm sure there's more.
*shrug* To each their own I suppose. I love the Arcanist personally, it gives me everything I want out of the Wizard and nothing I don't. I'll probably never touch a Wizard NPC again without rebuilding them.
And that's the problem. Why WOULD you play a Wizard or a Sorc when you can have the Arcanist? With a Bloodrager, you can see why you'd want this, or one of the parents. Barbs get better rage and powers than the Bloodrager and Bloodragers only get 4th level magic. Right there, you have a reason to play any one of the three options. With Arcanist... it seeks to replace the parent classes, and it succeeds with flying colors.
Utterly pointless.
You're way downplaying the other features of the sorcerers and wizards, Cyrad. The arcanist can not get the higher school or bloodlines powers. Those can go a long way in making a build powerful. The creep part is on Schrondinger-ability of wizard style preparation.
The school savant arcanist gets a full school for the cost of 3 exploits. The blood arcanist gets all bloodline powers at the cost of 4 exploits and their capstone ability. The exploiter wizard can get arcane reservoir, an exploit at 1st level, and an exploit every 4 levels after. Sorcerer doesn't get an arcanist MCA.
A 20th level exploiter wizard has:
Scribe Scroll
4 bonus feats
5 exploits
1 extra 6th level prepared
1 extra 7th level prepared
1 extra 8th level prepared
1 extra 9th level prepared
A 20th level school savant arcanist has:
2 exploits
5 greater exploits or normal exploits
consume spells
capstone ability
5 extra cantrips prepared
1 extra 1st level prepared
1 extra 2nd level prepared
I think the arcanist balances out with the wizard, but my point still remains. Your choice between the wizard, sorcerer, and arcanist is largely based on how you want to cast/prepare spells, not their other abilities. If a player values the other class features, then the arcanist always wins because they can get everything the wizard has and more.
|
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*shrug* To each their own I suppose. I love the Arcanist personally, it gives me everything I want out of the Wizard and nothing I don't. I'll probably never touch a Wizard NPC again without rebuilding them.And that's the problem. Why WOULD you play a Wizard or a Sorc when you can have the Arcanist? With a Bloodrager, you can see why you'd want this, or one of the parents. Barbs get better rage and powers than the Bloodrager and Bloodragers only get 4th level magic. Right there, you have a reason to play any one of the three options. With Arcanist... it seeks to replace the parent classes, and it succeeds with flying colors.
Utterly pointless.
I'd play a Wizard if I want better spells, faster. The wizard will have access to spells that are too high level for the Arcanist to counter throughout the bulk of play. Also if I wanted one of the kick-ass schools like Void, or a larger number of bonus feats for crafting or metamagic. Sure I can swap out with the Arcanist, but I might want to use several different metamagic feats all in the same day.
I'd play a Sorcerer if I don't want to burn through my resources like they're all made out of fireworks. If I just want a big ol' pile of spells and maybe a cool beatstick bloodline to fall back on. Or if I wanted to play a kitsune enchanter.
|
I'm a bit disappointed with the warpriest specifically. I would have much preferred to see a full BAB, with no casting, entirely based on using domains to get specific abilities, and maybe a few domain spells as spell-likes 1/day. Basically a paladin based around whatever domain of their deity they focus on instead of good and law. A holy person blessed by their deity not with spells, but with martial might. Cleric flavor, fighter role. As it is, I feel like they just made a non-skilled inquisitor.
Also I'm still waiting to see a magic user that's actually intended to deal damage with spells, without all the shenanigans currently involved with the crossblooded orc/draconic admixture wizard abomination. I hear kineticist from Occult Adventures might fill this.
I would also like to see a shapeshifting based character, geared for melee, without much if any actual spellcasting. This would be a class heavy on class abilities, probably with 4+int/level skills, 3/4 BAB, and 4 level casting.
I would also like a way to make a thrown weapon character that didn't rely on magic items just to function. Something as simple as being able to non-action recall a thrown weapon to your hand would make it work by itself. Maybe a range increase too. A way to ricochet thrown weapons would be pretty cool, though just a nice flavor addition.
Lastly, I want a way to do teleporting melee starting at level 4 at most, though this one is probably best as a rogue archetype or something similar. Maybe it's not appropriate for the pathfinder system given the assumed benchmarks.
*shrug* To each their own I suppose. I love the Arcanist personally, it gives me everything I want out of the Wizard and nothing I don't. I'll probably never touch a Wizard NPC again without rebuilding them.And that's the problem. Why WOULD you play a Wizard or a Sorc when you can have the Arcanist?
Flavor. Having more spells per day. That's about it, I guess.
I built a slayer last night, just to see what everyone was talking about when they complained about the talents, and it needs more talents of its own. The rogue talents suck, and giving them to a better class does not make them suck less. If it were not for the ranger style talent, and a few more they would not be worth looking at. If Paizo is reading this--->"Make talents for rogues and slayers better".
|
Design Manager
|
I built a slayer last night, just to see what everyone was talking about when they complained about the talents, and it needs more talents of its own. The rogue talents suck, and giving them to a better class does not make them suck less. If it were not for the ranger style talent, and a few more they would not be worth looking at. If Paizo is reading this--->"Make talents for rogues and slayers better".
I'm reasonably certain that that's something they've said they're looking at for Unchained. Though waiting to fix them until after releasing another class that uses them is released is understandably frustrating. I'll probably never play a Slayer who doesn't take the Vanguard archetype though, so I'm less invested in the quality of the Talents since any time I play I'll be trading away most of the ones I don't use for essential feats to pick up additional uses of the Vanguard's Tactician.
A quick'n'dirty fix for the Slayer is to add "gain a feat" as an advanced slayer talent. It was an option in the revised slayer play test and helps add more interesting options for a "fightery" slayer when you've taken combat trick, weapon training and the style feats.
Skald-This class really just feels like an archetye to me. I will admit that it does have some unique qualities, but the archetypes all feel very watered down, and it doesn't really different from your standard battle bard. 6/10
One thing to keep in mind with the skald (Inspired Rage): "If an ally has her own rage class ability (such as barbarian's rage, bloodrager's bloodrage, or skald's inspired rage), she may use the Strength, Constitution, and Will saving throw bonuses, as well as the AC penalties, based on her own ability and level instead of those from the skald (still suffering no fatigue afterward)." The character with a rage ability still has to activate their rage to use rage powers, bloodcasting, or bloodrager bloodlines in that round, but this still increases the number of "rage" rounds per day significantly, making a skald one of the best party members to have around for a barbarian or bloodrager (or any archetype that grants a rage feature of some sort).
|
|
Skald-This class really just feels like an archetye to me. I will admit that it does have some unique qualities, but the archetypes all feel very watered down, and it doesn't really different from your standard battle bard. 6/10One thing to keep in mind with the skald (Inspired Rage): "If an ally has her own rage class ability (such as barbarian's rage, bloodrager's bloodrage, or skald's inspired rage), she may use the Strength, Constitution, and Will saving throw bonuses, as well as the AC penalties, based on her own ability and level instead of those from the skald (still suffering no fatigue afterward)." The character with a rage ability still has to activate their rage to use rage powers, bloodcasting, or bloodrager bloodlines in that round, but this still increases the number of "rage" rounds per day significantly, making a skald one of the best party members to have around for a barbarian or bloodrager (or any archetype that grants a rage feature of some sort).
Totem-stacking, or non Primalist Bloodragers taking advantage of the Skald's Rage powers are also very possible and potentially very effective.
Arcanist- Not a fan of full casters as they tend to be too complicated for what I want and this seems to be the most complicated of the bunch.
Bloodrager- This one is good and probable my favorite of the bunch given that it is basically a Bardarian of a different stripe.
Brawler- Kind of meh. It is an effective version of the monk and not much more. I do find it odd that they can't flurry with hand axes and short swords. Seems like a waste of a proficiency to me. (I would love to be wrong on this point though.)
Hunter- This class seems like waste thematically. I rarely want a woodland character and I all ready see that space as being filled by the ranger, druid, Shaman, Nature Oracle, or Sylvan Sorcerer.
Investigator- Interesting and certainly fills the niche of skill based character. Not something I would play but something that was needed.
Shaman- Although it does lose point for being a full caster it does haves hexes which I adore. Also, the spirit and familar abilities are interesting while being just different enough for me to see it as having a place. Honestly, one of the few full casters I would enjoy playing.
Skald- This one is odd. It is a hybrid of my two favorite classes but the end result wasn't something that I really wanted. Honestly, between this and a bard I would rather have a bard.
Slayer- It is good at what it does and not much more. Nothing more to really add about it.
Swashbuckler- I actually like this class despite its flaws. The archetypes seem interesting and getting early dex to damage is a plus. I would use it more a multiclassing bait for a Paladin/sorcerer/oracle though.
Warpriest- Sacred Fist saves what would otherwise be a subpar class for me. The archetype with a MoMS monk dip is probably all I would use this for.
So in review:
Good: Shaman, Bloodrager, and Swashbuckler
Meh: Slayer, Investigator, Brawler, and Warpriest
Bad: Arcanist, Skald, and Hunter
Some of the Magus archetypes even get it sooner, like the Kensai and Myrmidarch who get it at 7th level and use their Magus level -3 as their Fighter level.
I already mentioned the Samurai gets to count his class levels as Fighter levels for his selected weapon...
The Brawler and Warpriest in their entirety can select Fighter only feats like Weapon Specialization.I'm sure there's more.
Just off the top of my head, Martial Artist and I THINK Sohei Monk can get them.
Then you get into the ones that don't get a blanket "Can take Fighter Feats" thing, but can get access to specific ones (like the Barbarian having Rage Powers for Disruptive and Spellbreaker).
"Fighter only" is anything but.