Why not the Archivist??


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Since Paizo have been bizarrely reluctant to do the decent thing by the cleric and sort out his multitude of issues... I have a suggestion for a quick and easy fix..... the 3.5 Archivist!

a) It provides a proper caster focussed cleric in a quick and easy fashion

b) It gives a wealth of character options that are so gravely needed for the class

c) It is already well balanced


...The cleric has issues? I was under the impression it was already one of the most powerful and versatile classes in the game.

Verdant Wheel

you mean trading out BAB for skill points?

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I dont see what is bizarre about not redesigning a class that was intentionally kept relatively unchanged due to backward compatibility.

-Skeld


Superficially everything appears OK with the cleric...

BUT its only when you fit the pieces together and look deeper you realise the cleric class is a mess...

1) Channeling is a waste... it becomes increasingly useless the higher you go and in order to make it worthwhile it needs a very heavy feat investment... which leads politely onto..

2) Ridiculously feat starved. For a class that in games often has soooo much asked/expected of it.... it isn't given the tools to assist it..... leading further onto

3) MAD.... a real problem. This again leads to a real lack of options as you progress, becoming magnified when you consider ability score requirements for certain feats. In short it is a recipe for blandness and mediocrity. Consider the comparison with the Oracle who can trade out on his Charisma and improve virtually across the board!!

4) Poor skill points.... just when you thought it couldnt get any worse!! For many clerics INT is a dump stat, making the acquisition of any skills that might prove useful and/or make the class more entertaining to roleplay virtually impossible.

5) Appalling archetype options... IMO there isnt one that is worth sniffing at... and many are truly horrendous

I could go on.....

The Archivist solves many of these probs in one fell swoop which ironically probably means that it doesnt stand a hope in hells chance of being introduced! Paizo seems determined to make the cleric the least appealing/viable class to play! The fact that several 3PP have done great jobs with it merely proves my point.....


And yet with all the issues on your list it is still a powerful class.

I understand what you're getting at though - it's kind of bland. So is wizard or a fighter. I always felt that was intentional.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I don't follow.

Channeling is completely free scaling healing. That means wasting fewer slots on Cure spells.

Feat starved? The cleric doesn't need a lot of feats, unless you want to fight as well as/better than a martial...which can be achieved via your buff spells.

MAD? The Cleric can spread out stats if he wants to melee by avoiding spells with saves, or focus on Wisdom and cast those spells with DCs. Some Oracles can add Cha to AC, but you can also just trundle around in armor. High Cha is nice for channel, but certainly not required as it's basically a freebie. Putting a 10-12 there is perfectly acceptable.

Domains offer customization options other classes achieve with archetypes.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Channel energy is one of the only AoE heals in the entire game. It has plenty of feat support. It's a great asset to the team in a game all about teamwork.

2) The cleric SHOULD be feat starved. They get 9-level spellcasting, one of the best healing, domains, and make for decent fighters with their 3/4 BAB. They already outshine martials simply because they gain so much in exchange for no bonus feats and a slight hit to BAB. Finally, there is a good archetype that grants you bonus feats without having to meet requirements, so...

3) MADness is pretty standard for a fighting spellcaster class.

4) They can cast 9th level spells, many of them excellent utility. Poor skill points is an acceptable and standard trade-off.

5) Every class has bad archetypes. Every one. Some of them outright unplayable or possessing mechanics that don't work as written.

Though fairly dull to play, the cleric is one of the strongest classes in the game because they get so much: good saves, decent BAB, 9th level spellcasting, good proficiencies, great healing, etc. Even compared to similar gish/support classes, they're really strong. Even Sean K. Reynolds says they're too powerful. Implying that they aren't viable really hurts your credibility.


Silver Surfer wrote:


5) Appalling archetype options... IMO there isnt one that is worth sniffing at... and many are truly horrendous

I could go on.....

While I agree that the Archivist is definitely more of what I want from the basic divine caster than the cleric, I am going to have to disagree with you about the Cleric's usefulness. The Cleric is an awesome class mechanically, despite the boredom of its options compared to other casters.

Also, the Evangelist and the Divine Strategist are both amazing archetypes, so I disagree with you there for sure.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Silver Surfer wrote:
Superficially everything appears OK with the cleric...

I think each of the points you bring up, except for the first is countered by the fact that Clerics have nine levels of spell casting, including a vast amount of buff spells.

The first point is countered by the fact that combat healing is meant as an emergency band aid, not a "heal to full mid combat" option. The rate at which a Cleric can heal his allies isn't meant to keep pace with the amount of damage dealt. Otherwise, the dynamics of combat would change to be all about negating your opponents' healing resources as quickly as possible instead of driving their HP to 0 as quickly as possible (imagine what would happen if Clerics were always the first and most important focus of the opponents' actions). Don't forget that Channel can also be used offensively and its healing qualities have to be balanced against its damage.

Silver Surfer wrote:
The Archivist solves many of these probs in one fell swoop which ironically probably means that it doesnt stand a hope in hells chance of being introduced! Paizo seems determined to make the cleric the least appealing/viable class to play! The fact that several 3PP have done great jobs with it merely proves my point.....

I'm not familiar with the Archivist or how it fixes all the problems with the Cleric, but I'm not surprised Paizo wouldn't spend their time reinventing a wheel that a 3PP has already invented.

-Skeld

Verdant Wheel

there is good MAD and there is bad MAD.

the former becomes the later when all attributes are needed to sustain any build/concept rather than a just a few.

the execution isn't perfect - for example i think the Mystery could teach the Domain a thing or two - but the class itself is pretty versatile.

would I let my PC trade out 3/4 BAB and 2 skills for 1/2 BAB and 6 skills? maybe...


Skeld wrote:


I'm not familiar with the Archivist or how it fixes all the problems with the Cleric, but I'm not surprised Paizo wouldn't spend their time reinventing a wheel that a 3PP has already invented.

-Skeld

But thats precisely the point, since day 1 Paizo have for some bizarre reason refused to do a proper divine caster class.... and before anyone says Ecclesitheurge... that is one of the worst archetypes going.... it was so bad that even the writer couldnt be assed to finish it!!... preferring simply to leave it half baked!

The fact that the Archivist exists as a viable class for the purpose and that 3PP have given it a go as well serves to prove my point emphatically... Paizo couldnt give a hoot! They are far more interested in creating such OP classes as the Arcanist as well as giving spontaneous casters and wizards mountains of options and power boosts!!


Silver Surfer wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
. Even compared to similar gish/support classes, they're really strong. Even Sean K. Reynolds says they're too powerful. Implying that they aren't viable really hurts your credibility.

I do not recall ever seeing him write that and if he did I would question HIS credibility!!!

Too powerful in comparison to what exactly?!??!

The Cleric is too powerful, alongside the Druid and Summoner. Those three classes are all full parties unto themselves and having other players is just gravy. I leave the top-tier Wizard out of the list because at least the Wizard is substantially better supporting the party by setting the field than basically solo'ing everything.

Silver Surfer wrote:
But thats precisely the point, since day 1 Paizo have for some bizarre reason refused to do a proper divine caster class.... and before anyone says Ecclesitheurge... that is one of the worst archetypes going.... it was so bad that even the writer couldnt be assed to finish it!!... preferring simply to leave it half baked!

That's not the writer's fault. The ability that got cut from the archetype was taken away at the editor's desk to conserve space.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Silver Surfer wrote:
But thats precisely the point, since day 1 Paizo have for some bizarre reason refused to do a proper divine caster class....

I don't understand this statement, especially the bolded portion.

-Skeld


I don't understand this thread. One person, only one, thinks that the cleric has "issues" and thinks that a 3.5 class "fixes" it. Everyone else in the world thinks the cleric is dandy as-is.

Why is this in the Homebrew forum? Why is it even a thread? Why are people responding to it? Are we really all so concerned that one (1) person is choosing not to play as a cleric?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Archivist was an insanely powerful 3.5 class, even ignoring the cheese. The 3.5 alternate Cleric that traded hit die and heavier armor for more skills was also incredibly powerful, moreso than default Cleric. PF Cleric is an incredibly strong class as is. If you want a more skill-focused Divine caster, why not Inquisitor?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

RumpinRufus wrote:

I don't understand this thread. One person, only one, thinks that the cleric has "issues" and thinks that a 3.5 class "fixes" it. Everyone else in the world thinks the cleric is dandy as-is.

Why is this in the Homebrew forum? Why is it even a thread? Why are people responding to it? Are we really all so concerned that one (1) person is choosing not to play as a cleric?

Quite right. Why not head on over to this thread in which I could use some criticisms of a homebrew PrC

>_>


No matter what you think of the Cleric class, it would still be very nice to have the Archivist supported in Pathfinder.


Will.Spencer wrote:
No matter what you think of the Cleric class, it would still be very nice to have the Archivist supported in Pathfinder.

Why?

I mean, let's take your argument at face value. Let's assume that I think the Cleric is the most awesome class in the game. Why would it be 'very nice' to have the Archivist supported?


kestral287 wrote:
Will.Spencer wrote:
No matter what you think of the Cleric class, it would still be very nice to have the Archivist supported in Pathfinder.

Why?

I mean, let's take your argument at face value. Let's assume that I think the Cleric is the most awesome class in the game. Why would it be 'very nice' to have the Archivist supported?

The way I see it people want a divine caster that focuses entirely on being a caster istead of being very gishy. Litterally a divine wizard. The focus on int is fun too. Its fun being a knowledgeable sage.


Which is all well and good... but doesn't actually answer the question posed.

Also, frankly, if the 3.5 Archivist was transported over directly the Archivist would be broken. All divine spells, when the two 4th-level casters who get a bunch of good spells at lower level than normal are both Divine? That's a problem.

It's also, arbitrarily speaking, more powerful than the Wizard in its basic form. Two good saves, better hit dice (3.5's has d6 hit dice while the Wizard has d4s), more skill ranks despite being Int-based as well. Can wear armor, unlike the Wizard. Has useful class abilities that are accessed as a move action, making it possible to cast a spell (eventually, two spells) and buff the party/debuff the enemy in the same round in a way that the Wizard cannot match. If we're seriously calling it balanced against the Wizard, we can't possibly contend that these are not problems.

An actually balanced version that gave it just the Cleric/Oracle list and actually balanced it against what we're apparently claiming it's balanced against? We could talk.


I think a good balance would be:

a) D6 HD - the wizard has this in PF so thats fair

b) When the cleric was migrated over to PF it lost its heavy armour prof. So logically the archivist should lose its med armour proficiency. In 3.5 the archivist couldnt use a shield so obviously that would stay.

c) I would reduce its weapon proficiency to a very small selection of simple weapons rather than access to all simple weapons.

d) The archivist couldnt channel in 3.5 and so that could be the case in PF too which helps with the balancing

e) The archivist ability to cast any divine spells should obviously stay. Firstly the archivist didnt get domains in 3.5 (as far as Im aware) and that could be carried over to PF. Also to a certain degree the archivist ability to get spells is to the same extent as a wizard tied to the GM dishing them out / giving opportunities to scribe them off over people.

f) Take the skill points down to +2

g) The archivist already has poor BAB so that would stay

Everything else can stay..... job done... now whats so difficult about that Paizo?!?


Silver Surfer wrote:

I think a good balance would be:

a) D6 HD - the wizard has this in PF so thats fair

b) When the cleric was migrated over to PF it lost its heavy armour prof. So logically the archivist should lose its med armour proficiency. In 3.5 the archivist couldnt use a shield so obviously that would stay.

c) I would reduce its weapon proficiency to a very small selection of simple weapons rather than access to all simple weapons.

d) The archivist couldnt channel in 3.5 and so that could be the case in PF too which helps with the balancing

e) The archivist ability to cast any divine spells should obviously stay. Firstly the archivist didnt get domains in 3.5 (as far as Im aware) and that could be carried over to PF. Also to a certain degree the archivist ability to get spells is to the same extent as a wizard tied to the GM dishing them out / giving opportunities to scribe them off over people.

f) Take the skill points down to +2

g) The archivist already has poor BAB so that would stay

Everything else can stay..... job done... now whats so difficult about that Paizo?!?

Congratulations, you just made the Oracle.


LuxuriantOak wrote:


Congratulations, you just made the Oracle.

LOL...Erm.....no


With the shaman existing with cherry picked arcane spells acting as divine an archivist getting all divine spells IS too good by that virtue. Id rather see them maybe getting access to a single school of spells from the wiz/sorc list. Also no armor prof whatsoever and class abilities lost if armor is worn ala monk.


christos gurd wrote:
With the shaman existing with cherry picked arcane spells acting as divine an archivist getting all divine spells IS too good by that virtue. Id rather see them maybe getting access to a single school of spells from the wiz/sorc list. Also no armor prof whatsoever and class abilities lost if armor is worn ala monk.

Much too harsh IMO.... the shaman has been given all manner of OP nonsense (so many in fact that its farcical) and so really could do with being pulled down a peg or 2..... I mean for FFS.... it has cleric HD, cleric armour proficiency, cleric BAB, 4 skill points.... AS well as all of the other goodies.... the archivist the doesnt get ANY of the standard cleric stats - no need to make it worse!!

(Huge sarcasm).... Well done Paizo on the Shaman.....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Silver Surfer wrote:
I think a good balance would be:

Interesting. You need to work on internal consistency in your arguments, as your first post gives this gem:

Silver Surfer wrote:
c) It is already well balanced

So which is it? Were you misrepresenting the class in your first post or are you doing so now?

Silver Surfer wrote:
a) D6 HD - the wizard has this in PF so thats fair

Sure. That's nerf number one for the 'already-balanced' class.

Silver Surfer wrote:
b) When the cleric was migrated over to PF it lost its heavy armour prof. So logically the archivist should lose its med armour proficiency. In 3.5 the archivist couldnt use a shield so obviously that would stay.

So they still get better defenses than the Wizard? Also, nerf number two.

Silver Surfer wrote:
c) I would reduce its weapon proficiency to a very small selection of simple weapons rather than access to all simple weapons.

Functionally irrelevant. Neither class will care about weapons past level 3 or so. Nerf number three though.

Silver Surfer wrote:
d) The archivist couldnt channel in 3.5 and so that could be the case in PF too which helps with the balancing

Oh? I thought you said Channel was terrible. Your second post:

Silver Surfer wrote:
1) Channeling is a waste... it becomes increasingly useless the higher you go and in order to make it worthwhile it needs a very heavy feat investment... which leads politely onto..

Not giving it an ability that is "a waste" does not help balance any. Notably, you totally glossed over the ridiculous power that is Dark Knowledge being a move action on a spellcaster.

Silver Surfer wrote:
e) The archivist ability to cast any divine spells should obviously stay. Firstly the archivist didnt get domains in 3.5 (as far as Im aware) and that could be carried over to PF. Also to a certain degree the archivist ability to get spells is to the same extent as a wizard tied to the GM dishing them out / giving opportunities to scribe them off over people.

Domains: Relatively few domain abilities are useful. In exchange, the Archivist gets... every domain spell in the game. Find a Cleric with the Good Domain, pay him to copy down all of his domain spells into a scroll. Repeat for Evil Domain. Repeat for Law Domain. Repeat for Chaos Domain. Congratulations, you have amassed a set of spells that no Cleric can possibly match-- and are just getting started. Next up, go find a Druid. Or better! Go find a high-level Paladin. Copy down his fourth-level Greater Angelic Aspect. Which Wizard gets eighth level spells at level seven? And this is not getting into what one can do with a Shaman.

Yes, the Wizard can also buy spells. The Wizard has a much smaller spell list. The Wizard doesn't have any equivalent to the Ranger and Paladin to borrow early-entry spells from.

Silver Surfer wrote:
f) Take the skill points down to +2

On par with the Wizard, so okay. Nerf number four.

Silver Surfer wrote:
g) The archivist already has poor BAB so that would stay

Functionally irrelevant, but on par with the Wizard.

So basically, what we're looking at is:

-The same HD, BAB, skills
-Better saves
-Better spell list. Than the Wizard. That one really bares repeating, just to make it clear. The Archivist has a better spell list than the Wizard.
-Casting in armor, which is more or less akin to permanent Mage Armor but better.
-Fewer simple weapon proficiencies, which an Archivist has absolutely no reason to care about.
-Buff/debuff class abilities that can be used simultaneously with spells and Quickened spells. Which Wizard ability lets you Stun an opponent with a move action?

Bolded abilities are major advantages over the Wizard. The only disadvantage offered is "fewer weapon proficiencies", which is about the least significant thing you can do to a full casting class.

Yeah. This is not balanced. And on the subject of balance! Four nerfs to the class, in one post, after you claimed it was balanced, is an excellent way to destroy your credibility when talking about balance.


I'd say insulting and dismissing arguments to the contrary, as well as blanket insults to Paizo and its staff, instead of actually explaining his points also contributes nicely to wrecking his credibility and the validity of his arguments.

I've never heard a complaint that the Cleric is weak. I have heard that the Cleric is bland. Trying to claim a 9-level caster who has full access to all cleric spells as soon as they are printed (Even tthe wizard has to find spellbooks or scrolls for his spells.) is weak and underpowered just seems silly. Doesn't help when he insults people for not agreeing.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed some posts and the replies to them. Personal insults don't add anything to the conversation. Additionally, it is probably more helpful to provide suggestions or examples, rather than passive aggressive jabs at other posters.


Archivist is one of those classes I don't mind to see gone. Full-list access casters like clerics are already very, very problematic when running games above level 7 or so (not even wizards' memorizations consumes nearly as much time as their searches through their ever-expanding spell list for just the thing that might win DnD today). Archivist had the same problem squared. In PF it is even worse because of extra divine casters.


What does MAD mean?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Multiple ability dependencies. I.E.: A wizard needs Int and minor investment of dex depending on the build.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

The monk is a good example of a MAD class. The class forces them to be melee fighters with no armor, so they need Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution just to stay alive and be useful in combat. However, they also need Wisdom for ki and getting an AC bonus. As a result, they depend on four ability scores.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Right. Wizard is one of the most SAD (single ability dependency). Maybe a caster Oracle is more-so now that Charisma can go so far.


Xethik wrote:
Right. Wizard is one of the most SAD (single ability dependency). Maybe a caster Oracle is more-so now that Charisma can go so far.

Exactly.... and this is one of the things forgotten in terms of my cleric and archivist argument. People dont look at the bigger picture.

The archivist still has to put a heavy investment into Wisdom as this is linked to bonus spells.

The cleric is horrendously MAD.... channeling which IMO is fairly terrible is Charisma linked. So you have a choice - either forgo Charisma and lose out entirely on a class skill or try to make the most out of a bad situation and invest ability points AND in reality feats to get something out of it.

The archivist is IMO reasonably balanced... there would of course be some PF changes, but I think they would only have to be minor.

One of the biggest hurdles with the cleric and why I actually think it is quite underpowered relative to many of the other full casters is channeling... so many "goodie points" are tied up into something that you have no option but to take... and something that really is only any good with a significant ability score investment and a MASSIVE feat investment which the cleric has very few of in the first place!! The oracle and shaman can get access to channeling IF THEY WANT TO.... they are not lumbered with it.

It really wouldnt be so hard to have channeling as an option to take at first level vs a choice of other benefits.... but that would be far too simple for Paizo and would run the risk of making the cleric balanced relative to other casters and actually interesting to play..... SIGGGGGHHHH!!!

I am of the firm opinion that Paizo have done a dreadful job with the cleric class in general and sadly show no sign of trying to do anything about it...... the Ecclesitheurge being the latest bit of lip service/farce

Vote for the Archivist!!!


1. Assuming the Archivist also got the feat support it had in 3.5, they're actually Int-based for everything. They get a feat specifically to go Int to bonus spells.

2. Worth noting that the Cleric needs a much lower casting stat than the Wizard since many more of their spells don't have DCs. Worth noting that the Cleric doesn't need Dex nearly as much as the Wizard since they can wear armor. Con is needed less than the Wizard since armor, but at worst it's the same investment. Strength depends on what kind of Cleric you want to be, but the option to play up strength is something Wizards never have.

So there's room to boost Cha. Or, just ignore Channeling and move on. The Cleric does fine without it.

3. You have demonstrated nothing to indicate that the Archivist is balanced. Even after your four proposed nerfs a definitive imbalance exists and you have demonstrated nothing to disprove this. Ergo, your "IMO" is worth nothing.

4. Yup, absolutely required to take Channeling. Unless you're a Divine Strategist. Then you can act in the surprise round from level one and your initiative is insane-- and even your allies' initiative is boosted. That would let you totally dump Cha, also solving point #2. So... yeah, not really seeing your point.

5. Explain to me again how the caster with 3/4ths BAB (no arcane caster gets that unless they're 6th level casting), the ability to cast in armor, and access to their entire spell list on a lark is the weakest one? I mean, you can make a case for it not being the strongest 9th level caster, but really. The weakest?

I would like a point by point comparison for each rival class explaining that assertion. The Sorcerer one should be especially interesting.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Silver Surfer wrote:
But thats precisely the point, since day 1 Paizo have for some bizarre reason refused to do a proper divine caster class....

I don't understand this statement, especially the bolded portion.

-Skeld

If your standard for a "proper divine class" is one of the more cheesier examples from 3.5, then I understand your position OP. It's also why I strongly disagree with it, having seen what my spouse did with a straight cleric.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright, I'll bite.

Total number of people in this thread who have stated the Cleric is underpowered: Silver Surfer (1)

Total number of people in this thread who have stated the Cleric is bland, but not underpowered: Ciaran, Cyrad, Adam, Trigger (4). I happen to agree with this, so we'll make it five.

Total number of posters in this thread: Silver Surfer, Arachnofiend, rainzax, Skeld, Ciaran, Petty, Cyrad, Adam, RumpinRufus, Xethik, Will, LuxuriantOak, christos, Trigger, FatR, Rabbiteconomist, LazarX, and myself (18) [mod post discounted here, for hopefully obvious reasons].

Bonus points! Total number of links to major industry figures who worked for Pazio stating that the Cleric is overpowered: 1. This is the same number of generic forumgoers arguing that it is underpowered.

Presuming this thread is an accurate representation of Pazio forum members' viewpoints, which is flawed in your favor by default, the best you can argue is that something like one in four people think the Cleric is bland, but not underpowered. You have no justifiable argument for claiming that there's any kind of significant opinion that it's underpowered without providing evidence, which you have not done (to borrow your turn of phrase, "so there"). My search did not turn up another thread about the Archivist that wasn't three or more years old*, and none of the three I found got any kind of significant traction.

*if we really want to be technical, the most recent I found with a search was posted on Jan 30, 2012. I rounded.

By your own contention here then:

Silver Surfer wrote:
If I was the only person to have ever made suggestions about sorting out the cleric class then you would have a point

Once we differentiate between "Cleric is bland" and "Cleric is underpowered", and demonstrate that yes, you are the only person to make suggestions to the latter effect, you have proven yourself wrong. Congratulations.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Silver Surfer wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Right. Wizard is one of the most SAD (single ability dependency). Maybe a caster Oracle is more-so now that Charisma can go so far.
Exactly.... and this is one of the things forgotten in terms of my cleric and archivist argument. People dont look at the bigger picture.

I didn't forget. I mentioned that MAD is pretty standard for a gish spellcaster. MAD makes sense for a cleric because they're a jack of all trades and master of divine spells and healing.

I can understand if you want a divine wizard class instead of the gish cleric, but the cleric has always been like that. In pretty much every edition of D&D, clerics are armored battle priests that can fight, heal, and cast powerful spells. Change that and they're not a cleric anymore. Rewriting the cleric (instead of creating a new class) into something like an archivist would be like giving the wizard a 3/4 BAB and replacing arcane bond with spell combat. They're not a wizard anymore -- just an overpowered magus.

Silver Surfer wrote:
The archivist is IMO reasonably balanced... there would of course be some PF changes, but I think they would only have to be minor.

Can you explain why you think an archivist would be balanced? kestral287 gave some very strong arguments to the contrary. Their spell list is particularly an issue. Having a spell list that's better than the class specializing in having the best spell list in the game is a huge balance issue. A PF archivist would need a revised spell list.

Silver Surfer wrote:

I am of the firm opinion that Paizo have done a dreadful job with the cleric class in general and sadly show no sign of trying to do anything about it...... the Ecclesitheurge being the latest bit of lip service/farce

Vote for the Archivist!!!

Spewing Paizo hate doesn't really endear anyone towards your cause. I also don't see the wisdom in insulting the company you're trying to persuade.

Why not just play an Archivist? The entire point of Pathfinder was to create a game compatible with 3.5e material. How about all the new classes Paizo has created? They're really cool and flavorful. You mentioned disliking the ecclesitheurge, but what about the other archetypes in ACG? There's an archetype that makes the witch more like a cleric. There's an arcanist archetype that's literally called white mage that lets you spontaneous cast healing spells. In fact, the arcanist strikes me as not a bad class to play if you want to play something like an archivist. Arcanists are so versatile that you can refluff them as any kind of spellcaster.

If none of that suits your tastes, why not homebrew an archetype or class yourself, and show everyone your vision of what a Pathfinder archivist looks like?


To play Devil's advocate, Silver Surfer isn't saying the Cleric is underpowered by itself, he's saying it's underpowered and receives less crunch support and fewer options than Arcane spellcasters, and almost all other divine casters have better and more interesting toys.

Though saying a Cleric is underpowered compared to other full caster classes seems to indicate that a Cleric is thus a balanced full-caster class. (Note that aside from Wizards top and Rogues bottom, I don't really know what the current tier listings are)

Not sure having a cleric who trades out physical ability for more spellcasting power is the way to go. Aside from the already mentioned points, one of the bigger complaints with Clerics is that most Clerics tend to prepare the same spells, even if they worship wildly different gods. Giving them more spells hardly seems like it'd fix that blandness problem.


Trigger Loaded wrote:
To play Devil's advocate, Silver Surfer isn't saying the Cleric is underpowered by itself, he's saying it's underpowered and receives less crunch support and fewer options than Arcane spellcasters, and almost all other divine casters have better and more interesting toys.

But those are two separate points. That it's undersupported you can contend, though I'm not sure I'd actually agree. That it's underpowered you realistically cannot without a full comparison to existing casting classes. But if it's undersupported the proper response would be to grant it additional support, not replace it. Homebrew up some new archetypes and have fun.

Trigger Loaded wrote:
Though saying a Cleric is underpowered compared to other full caster classes seems to indicate that a Cleric is thus a balanced full-caster class. (Note that aside from Wizards top and Rogues bottom, I don't really know what the current tier listings are)

If you buy into the tiers-- and I really don't-- this is decent enough at first blush. Note that Cleric is Tier 1, alongside Druid and Wizard. I've actually never seen a tier list for PF where the Cleric wasn't T1.

Trigger Loaded wrote:
Not sure having a cleric who trades out physical ability for more spellcasting power is the way to go. Aside from the already mentioned points, one of the bigger complaints with Clerics is that most Clerics tend to prepare the same spells, even if they worship wildly different gods. Giving them more spells hardly seems like it'd fix that blandness problem.

Straight full-magic Cleric archetype-- Ecclisitheurge done better-- would be fine. Archivist is a lot more than that though. One class ability, once you get it rolling (which is nothing more than "invest in Knowledge skills") can daze/stun things as a move action. And, with a Shaman on the table, one can theoretically get an Archivist who knows:

Every Cleric spell
Every Wizard spell
Every Druid spell
Every Ranger spell
Every Paladin spell
Every Inquisitor spell

Yeah.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Trigger Loaded wrote:
Not sure having a cleric who trades out physical ability for more spellcasting power is the way to go. Aside from the already mentioned points, one of the bigger complaints with Clerics is that most Clerics tend to prepare the same spells, even if they worship wildly different gods. Giving them more spells hardly seems like it'd fix that blandness problem.

I agree. I think the best approach would be reworking domains. Domains seemed like a great direction in making a religious character with abilities tailored to the deity, but they seem like such a minor part of the character. A less intensive idea is an archetype that gives oracle revelations based on the domains a cleric chooses. Or maybe a class that plays with Deific Obediance. Come to think of it, taking the evangelist prestige class is not a bad idea if you want to play a skill-focused cleric with special abilities. It's one of the only prestige classes that let you gain class features of another class whenever you take a level in it.


FatR wrote:
Archivist is one of those classes I don't mind to see gone. Full-list access casters like clerics are already very, very problematic when running games above level 7 or so (not even wizards' memorizations consumes nearly as much time as their searches through their ever-expanding spell list for just the thing that might win DnD today). Archivist had the same problem squared. In PF it is even worse because of extra divine casters.

Minor correction: Archivists use a spell book. They don't have "full-list access".


Fabius Maximus wrote:
FatR wrote:
Archivist is one of those classes I don't mind to see gone. Full-list access casters like clerics are already very, very problematic when running games above level 7 or so (not even wizards' memorizations consumes nearly as much time as their searches through their ever-expanding spell list for just the thing that might win DnD today). Archivist had the same problem squared. In PF it is even worse because of extra divine casters.
Minor correction: Archivists use a spell book. They don't have "full-list access".

As noted though, since Clerics tend to draw from a small pool of spells anyway that's not a big loss. Really though, I'd expect an Archivist to expend a huge chunk of change on new spells (The good 3.5 Archivist guide suggests something like 40-50%). A big chunk of that is likely to be spells off other lists or domain spells.

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Why not the Archivist?? All Messageboards