Advanced Class Guide Preview: Arcanist

This joke went to the best place. It really did.

Indeed! I am proud to be vaguely and tangentially involved in its inception.

Wow, guys stop making me smile. This is the Arcanist thread! I thought nobody was allowed to be happy in here.

NSFW, but apropos.

Also nothing prevents you from carrying more than one Handy Haversack, they are only 5lbs each.

I know that I commonly see people wearing multiple backpacks around. When I go to a school the kid with only one backpack on is the outlier.

I suspect this is one of many disconnects you and I are likely to have. You seem to look at the rules in the context of what is explicitly allowed or forbidden by the RAW. I (and I suspect many others) look at the rules as helping to govern what is essentially meant to be simulationist gaming. I'm pretty sure my GM would shoot down multiple haversacks out of principle, and if he didn't the rest of the players would cry foul.

This laying aside that for the first 7-8 levels multiple handy haversacks represent a very significant expenditure.

Quote:

No, it isn't. This is Demonstratively Untrue.

Can people stop repeating the same trite and inaccurate talking points about how cheap it is to have every spell?

I do wish you would stop posting the link to your trite strawman nonsense. No prepared arcane caster needs to learn every single spell. Even if they did as soon as the Blessed Book becomes available all of those scribing costs go away for the low low cost of 6250gp. Each book has 1000 pages and can therefore hold 1000 levels of spells.

If you fill it with nothing but level 9 spells, assuming you could find 111 level 9 spells, then you save yourself over 80000gp in scribing costs alone.

At the end of the day it is trivially easy for a prepared arcane caster to have access to a very wide library of spells available for any potential situation. Pretending that it isn't is not fooling anyone.

By all means Andreww, please refute my argument. Stark, you are welcome to join in as well if you'd like, since you favorited this.

Show me how, from level 1 on, it is trivially inexpensive to have access to all spells that are meaningful. Even if I were to throw out half of all spells at every level I charted out you are still spending the vast majority of your wealth by level simply buying access to, much less scribing.

Eventually you can swap to a blessed book, but not for a good long while if you are buying all the spells you want from level 1. I would estimate no sooner than level 10 or 11, because until that point it isn't even cost effective since you've already scribed all the lower level stuff at full cost. Even then however, the cost is not trivial, and requires the investment of a feat to help offset. Lets not forget that doing this at all assumes you have access to the cash to do so, and aren't getting items as a significant portion of your wealth. We're still in theory land here where the GM simply hands you nothing but gold pieces from every enemy you defeat.

This all also assumes, lets not forget, that the GM is giving you unfettered access to every spell in the form of someone not only having it, but being willing to sell it for a trivial amount, because as we know that is what the rules dictate.

Even with all these factors in place by level ~17 when you have the ability to cast spells of all levels you have likely spent in excess of 150,000gp. In the scheme of things by level 20 that's not a huge portion of your wealth, but it is remarkably significant, and even more so below level 20. Now, if you build straight out at 17 and avoid all the lower level hoops perhaps you can shave a significant portion off, but the same is true for any character built at high level, and the amount will still be significant because of the cost of buying access to spells and for the multiple blessed books.

TL:DR Even if you have access to every 'meaningful' spell, the cost of scribing them is not trivially cheap until very high levels, and until mid levels (10+) represents a huge portion of a characters wealth.

I have done spread sheets that show exactly how much it would cost to scribe every core wizard spell into your spellbook, and how a blessed book might effect that cost.

I recently made another one to see how much it would cost to buy or scribe a scroll of every core wizard spell.

The former is quite affordable, even dirt cheap with blessed books (you'll need two by the way), while the latter is impractically expensive (and I hadn't even accounted for the expensive material component costs).

Affordable if you start at a level where you can afford blessed books and have access to them for free without paying the scribing fee that many people are hung up on?

That seems about right. There are a lot of parts to the game that get squirrelly when you start at high levels, where you are able to offset choices that at lower levels would be painful or troublesome. Case and point, magical lineage for a high level spell, or the old sorcerer1/wizardX trick.

Personally, I stopped caring about the supposed versitility of the Arcanist when I realized that in PFS my sorcerer with a Ring of Spell Knowledge IV was better in almost every way (except for having a bit less money). I will evaluate the class for real when I can see its final list of class features.

By all means Andreww, please refute my argument. Stark, you are welcome to join in as well if you'd like, since you favorited this.

Show me how, from level 1 on, it is trivially inexpensive to have access to all...

Honestly, I had no interest in replying to this, mainly due to the fact that you replied with the cost of every single spell of each level, which is not what I said and entirely excessive. It's no secret that there are dozens of trash spells at most spell levels. However, since you're calling me out by name...

First off, it's disigenuous to start at first level. My comparison, at least, was to the paragon surge spell, which is first avilable to the sorcerer at 6th level. At sixth level, with the craft wondrous item feat, (one of the best feats in the game by any measure) a single blessed book is 6250 GP. This is well within your wealth by level, and although it's a more significant chunk if you decline to take the feat, you can still afford one. This gives you 1000 pages of spells to work with. If you fill this book with 40 level 1, 40 level 2, and 40 level 3 spells, it only takes 240 pages. This will easily last you for 40 level 5 spells and 40 level six spells as well, with pages left over if you need more of a specific level. You cited a large number of spells, but many of those are redundant or unneeded, and since your wealth by level vastly increases, this cost will remain relatively low. This isn't even taking into account the free spells you get just from leveling. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say that. access to that many spells as a standard action is comparable to paragon surge.

andreww wrote:

Also nothing prevents you from carrying more than one Handy Haversack, they are only 5lbs each.

I know that I commonly see people wearing multiple backpacks around. When I go to a school the kid with only one backpack on is the outlier.

I suspect this is one of many disconnects you and I are likely to have. You seem to look at the rules in the context of what is explicitly allowed or forbidden by the RAW. I (and I suspect many others) look at the rules as helping to govern what is essentially meant to be simulationist gaming. I'm pretty sure my GM would shoot down multiple haversacks out of principle, and if he didn't the rest of the players would cry foul.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're mistaken on the definition of "haversack" rather than that you're actively trying to misrepresent Andreww's post: Haversacks run the gamut from small conventional backpacks to what we'd today describe as messenger bags or satchels. It's hardly an unreasonable assumption that you'd be able to wear more than one haversack, especially when you consider what the typical adventurer usually winds up carrying around. Unlike school kids, adventurers tend to value efficiency over peer pressure.

In fact, if you look up the illustration of the Handy Haversack on p. 301 in Ultimate Equipment, you'll find it is shown as a messenger bag.

Bam! Kudaku layin down the references!

First off, it's disigenuous to start at first level

Why? That's when the game starts.

My comparison, at least, was to the paragon surge spell...

Just wanted to mention: Paragaon Surge has finally recived the nerfs that it deserves. You can essentally use it to only learn *one* new spell each day. The FAQs have been updated.

Stark_ wrote:

First off, it's disigenuous to start at first level

Why? That's when the game starts.

Not all games. Likely not even the majority of them. I know quite a few GMs who dislike the binary nature of low levels where dice can kill your character without an being able to do a thing about it.

Obviously most modules dont start at level 1.

Ross Byers wrote:

Stark_ wrote:

First off, it's disigenuous to start at first level

Why? That's when the game starts.

Not all games. Likely not even the majority of them. I know quite a few GMs who dislike the binary nature of low levels where dice can kill your character without an being able to do a thing about it.

Obviously most modules dont start at level 1.

Absolutely. But that doesn't make measuring character advancement from first level "disigenuous". Pointing out that certain assumptions about wealth, spell access, and crafting feats at higher level being invalid on a character progressing up from lower level is hardly arguing in bad faith.

Spellbook (or formula book) using classes, in particular, can have some very odd results when building a higher-level character, because there is no single way to compare Wealth-by-Level to access to spells to copy. You get one result if you just assume scribing cost (because that's the only thing that affects the sale value of the book). You get another if you require buying scrolls. You get yet a third if you try to split the difference or your GM assumes that NPCs charge for access to their spellbooks. Not to mention it skips over the Spellcraft checks required to actually copy the spell.

Removed a chain of posts that started out with personal attacks.

Just don't do it. Final warning.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Ross Byers wrote:

Stark_ wrote:

First off, it's disigenuous to start at first level

Why? That's when the game starts.

Not all games. Likely not even the majority of them. I know quite a few GMs who dislike the binary nature of low levels where dice can kill your character without an being able to do a thing about it.

Obviously most modules dont start at level 1.

I'm certain this is true, I've done it more than a few times. That said, even if you don't start at 1st level, most characters in play have advanced significantly from whatever level they started. Using "built" characters as an example is only really relevant the first few sessions a character is played. Not representative of characters you see in routine play.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Is it good? Yes. Is it significantly better than a sorcerer or a wizard? No. It burns through its slots faster than a sorcerer and has a narrower focus than a wizard, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

This actually scares me. A lot.

The developers think it isn't "significantly" better than a wizard. Which implies, to me, that they think it is probably a little better.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "significant"? If they say that the class isn't significantly better it means that there isn't more of a hairline's worth of difference. There will be roles in which wizards are better suited as well as characters better built as sorcerers. If I can build a caster theme around a limited number of spells, sorcerer will always be the better road to travel, given the fewer spell slots and lack of bloodline powers. A wizard with an arcane bond item can literally pull any spell out of their collected books instantly once per day. and has access to better school powers. And if they choose their spells wisely, have more overall spell power. Nor will it obsolete the magus who will still be a far better gish as would the wizard going into eldritch knight.

By all means Andreww, please refute my argument. Stark, you are welcome to join in as well if you'd like, since you favorited this.

Show me how, from level 1 on, it is trivially inexpensive to have access to all spells that are meaningful. Even if I were to throw out half of all spells at every level I charted out you are still spending the vast majority of your wealth by level simply buying access to, much less scribing.

Eventually you can swap to a blessed book, but not for a good long while if you are buying all the spells you want from level 1. I would estimate no sooner than level 10 or 11, because until that point it isn't even cost effective since you've already scribed all the lower level stuff at full cost. Even then however, the cost is not trivial, and requires the investment of a feat to help offset. Lets not forget that doing this at all assumes you have access to the cash to do so, and aren't getting items as a significant portion of your wealth. We're still in theory land here where the GM simply hands you nothing but gold pieces from every enemy you defeat.

This all also assumes, lets not forget, that the GM is giving you unfettered access to every spell in the form of someone not only having it, but being willing to sell it for a trivial amount, because as we know that is what the rules dictate.

Even with all these factors in place by level ~17 when you have the ability to cast spells of all levels you have likely spent in excess of 150,000gp. In the scheme of things by level 20 that's not a huge portion of your wealth, but it is remarkably significant, and even more so below level 20. Now, if you build straight out at 17 and avoid all the lower level hoops perhaps you can shave a significant portion off, but the same is true for any character built at high level, and the amount will still be significant because of the cost of buying access to spells and for the multiple blessed books.

TL:DR Even if you have access to every 'meaningful' spell, the cost of scribing them is not trivially cheap until very high levels, and until mid levels (10+) represents a huge portion of a characters wealth.

There really aren't that many "meaningful" spells, since there are often multiple spells that can overcome a similar challenge. Having a spellbook full of useful spells is not something that's going to break the bank for you, unless your GM both abolishes the 2 free spells the Wizard gets every level, and requires you to scribe spells from scrolls instead of the other methods you could use.

It is quite possible, even feasible, to learn every spell in the game, without going over WBL. It is not "trivially expensive", and it's not really the smartest allocation of your resources, but it IS doable, unless you bring in arbitrary restrictions which vary from game to game and GM to GM but aren't really reflected in the rules, as shown below.

While this post is a mite outdated, I don't think the numbers are far enough off as far as how many spells per level there are to make a significant difference.

Ross Byers wrote:

Stark_ wrote:

First off, it's disigenuous to start at first level

Why? That's when the game starts.

Not all games. Likely not even the majority of them.

I think you are wrong in them being the majority.

I know quite a few GMs who dislike the binary nature of low levels where dice can kill your character without an being able to do a thing about it.

I know GM's that like low level games. There are ways to deal with binary nature of low levels. The GM can ignore crits when needed etc. Or remove enemy weapons like the Greataxe that have a x3 crit multiplier and replace it with a Greatsword or a Greatclub or whatever.

Also, not stating at level one does not have to equal starting at level 7. Mostly this is only a problem at level 1. Some problems might remain at level 2, but by level 3 this usually isn't a problem.

Obviously most modules dont start at level 1.

I have no idea if it is Obvious.

Even if it is obvious I don’t equal most games are not played from level 1.

All AP start at level 1. At least all the ones we have played and the ones that I’ve heard of.

There are also plenty of campaigns that disallow crafting, either because the GM does not like it, or because the players will not have the game time necessary to craft anything above consumables.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're mistaken on the definition of "haversack" rather than that you're actively trying to misrepresent Andreww's post: Haversacks run the gamut from small conventional backpacks to what we'd today describe as messenger bags or satchels. It's hardly an unreasonable assumption that you'd be able to wear more than one haversack, especially when you consider what the typical adventurer usually winds up carrying around. Unlike school kids, adventurers tend to value efficiency over peer pressure.

In fact, if you look up the illustration of the Handy Haversack on p. 301 in Ultimate Equipment, you'll find it is shown as a messenger bag.

And yet the item description in the CRB explicitly describes it as a backpack.

Honestly, I had no interest in replying to this, mainly due to the fact that you replied with the cost of every single spell of each level, which is not what I said and entirely excessive.

And yet, in my second response I threw out half of all spells of each level, and still found the results to make up a huge portion of your wealth by level.

It's no secret that there are dozens of trash spells at most spell levels. However, since you're calling me out by name...

I am.

First off, it's disigenuous to start at first level.

Why? Because that's where AP's start? Because that is where almost every game I've ever played in (over 15 years) began? Starting at 1st level is remarkably damaging to your argument, which is why you don't want to start there, but we can go ahead and bump it up a few levels. Lets see...

My comparison, at least, was to the paragon surge spell, which is first avilable to the sorcerer at 6th level.

Sure, lets look at 6th level.

At 6th level a characters Wealth By Level should be 16,000. A character created at a level over 1st is not allowed to spend more than 1/4 of their wealth by level on any single item, which means buying a blessed book (12,500) is out. Even assuming your GM lets you craft items prior to the start of the game using crafting feats your blessed book is still out, as 6,250 represents significantly more than a quarter of your wealth by level.

But for the sake of argument, lets hand-wave spending rules for characters over 1st level. Lets say your GM lets you start having crafted items, lets you ignore spending rules, and you begin with a crafted blessed book for 6,250gp.

Lets also assume that you didn't scribe a single spell prior to acquiring your blessed book, so you are not going to get double tapped on scribing costs at all. This seems to be stretching my credulity a bit, but we'll run with it. At this point all you are paying for is the crafting cost of the blessed book and the price to scribe spells out of another wizards spellbook (again, assuming that your GM lets you scribe whatever spells your want at the default cost before the start of the game).

How much does it cost you to scribe those spells out of wizards spellbooks? Lets read on to find out. Since you argued with my assessment of how many spells you should know, lets go with your own numbers.

This gives you 1000 pages of spells to work with. If you fill this book with 40 level 1, 40 level 2, and 40 level 3 spells, it only takes 240 pages. This will easily last you for 40 level 5 spells and 40 level six spells as well, with pages left over if you need more of a specific level.

40 1st level spells, 40 2nd level spells, and 40 3rd level spells. Seems like a lot. We'll scrap 8 1st level spells you knew at 1st level (you started with a 20 Int of course). We'll throw out another 10 spells from leveling up, leaving you with the following to buy from another wizard for 1/2 the cost of scribing them into your book:

30 1st level spells
36 2nd level spells
36 3rd level spells

How much does this cost? Each 1st level spell is 5gp, each 2nd 20gp, and each 3rd 45gp. Total cost: 2,490gp (150 1st, 720 2nd, 1620 3rd).

Combined with the 6,250 you paid to create your blessed book you've spent 8,740gp on spells alone! That seems like a bit more than a trivial amount to me, given that it represents more than 1/2 of your total wealth by level at 6th level.

That seems like it is a bit more than 'very easy' to do. In fact, given the hoops we had to jump through to make it work, that seems downright difficult, what with your GM ignoring a bunch of rules and letting you game the system on when you purchased the spells. It definitely seems like it was unlikely to have played out from a lower level, and seems to represent your character springing forth fully formed at 6th level, as from the womb.

This is well within your wealth by level, and although it's a more significant chunk if you decline to take the feat, you can still afford one.

As covered above, no, it isn't. The only way a 6th level character begins with a blessed book is with a GM ignoring any limitations on his spending. The earliest level you could legally begin play with a blessed book you purchased is 10th (62,000 WBL vs. 12,500 cost = 20% of your total wealth). The earliest level you could have crafted it, assuming your GM would let you, is 8th level (33,000 WBL vs. 6,250 cost = 18% of your WBL).

You cited a large number of spells, but many of those are redundant or unneeded, and since your wealth by level vastly increases, this cost will remain relatively low.

If more than 1/2 of your wealth by level is low, I'm curious as to what you'd define as high.

This isn't even taking into account the free spells you get just from leveling. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say that. access to that many spells as a standard action is comparable to paragon surge.

No, actually it does take into account the spells you get from leveling, as pointed out above. You get two each level. Using your 40 spell metric you receive 10% of the spells you expect to have at a given level for free.

To be clear, my argument was never that it is impossible to have access to a large number of spells. My argument is that hand waving the costs or making absurd blanket statements to the effect of 'you can have all the spells you need at a trivial cost' is wrong. Spellbooks are expensive. The only time they are not hugely expensive is when you start at high levels without paying any scribing costs. At low levels, at middling levels, and on any character built from level 1 a spellbook represents a hugely significant allocation of funds.

Scavion wrote:

I know quite a few GMs who dislike the binary nature of low levels where dice can kill your character without an being able to do a thing about it.

I know GM's that like low level games. There are ways to deal with binary nature of low levels. The GM can ignore crits when needed etc. Or remove enemy weapons like the Greataxe that have a x3 crit multiplier and replace it with a Greatsword or a Greatclub or whatever.

So they houserule to avoid it. Cool. That doesn't stop the baseline from being incredibly binary.

Kudaku wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:

I suspect this is one of many disconnects you and I are likely to have. You seem to look at the rules in the context of what is explicitly allowed or forbidden by the RAW. I (and I suspect many others) look at the rules as helping to govern what is essentially meant to be simulationist gaming. I'm pretty sure my GM would shoot down multiple haversacks out of principle, and if he didn't the rest of the players would cry foul.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're mistaken on the definition of "haversack" rather than that you're actively trying to misrepresent Andreww's post: Haversacks run the gamut from small conventional backpacks to what we'd today describe as messenger bags or satchels. It's hardly an unreasonable assumption that you'd be able to wear more than one haversack, especially when you consider what the typical adventurer usually winds up carrying around. Unlike school kids, adventurers tend to value efficiency over peer pressure.

In fact, if you look up the illustration of the Handy Haversack on p. 301 in Ultimate Equipment, you'll find it is shown as a messenger bag.

And yet the item description in the CRB explicitly describes it as a backpack.

I suspect this is one of many disconnects you and I are likely to have. You seem to look at the item description as a rule in the context of what is explicitly allowed or forbidden by the RAW. I (and I suspect many others) look at the rules as helping to govern what is essentially meant to be simulationist gaming. I'm pretty sure my GM would have no problems with someone wearing two haversacks out of principle, and if he did the rest of the players would cry foul.

Man this thread is just getting nasty, I'm not even sure what they're fighting about anymore.

Are they still trying to prove that the Arcanist is broken or are they just bickering about spellbook mechanics?

Does the availability of spells in a game world affect how good the class is? Absolutely. Is it the deciding factor on whether or not the class is effective? Absolutely not.

In the end it's all semantics. If an Arcanist can only prep 4 spells in a day, and the wizard can prep 5, then the wizard has the option of leaving that last slot open and the Arcanist has the option of swapping out one of those spells if he needs something else.

You do realize how incredibly petty of an argument this is right? He has the ability to prepare knock without waiting 24 hours first- HOLY ******* **** IT'S BROKEN!!!!!

I have already shown how much time has to be spent to use it in combat, being 3 rounds after you start the process, assuming a standard action cast, which makes the ability useless in combat.

Glove of Storing shenanigans aside, the ability simply doesn't work as written, and swapping out a spell is just not that broken.

Also: inb4 there is an Arcane Discovery in this book that let's wizards do the same thing and this entire thread's argument was pointless.

Why? Because that's where AP's start? Because that is where almost every game I've ever played in (over 15 years) began? Starting at 1st level is remarkably damaging to your argument, which is why you don't want to start there, but we can go ahead and bump it up a few levels. Lets see...

No, because 6th level is when paragon surge exists and the comparison becomes relevant.

"Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item." Spending only 1/4th of your wealth on an item is clearly stated as a optional approach rather than the norm. However, it's clear from your post that you are entrenched in your position and we are devolving into table variance on the accessibility of crafting feats and what level we are starting at. At this point, I don't have any further interest in discussing this with you.

At this point, I don't have any further interest in discussing this with you.

You have no interest because the argument that it is inexpensive to maintain such a spellbook, regardless of availability of feats, crafting variance, and so forth, is pretty easily debunked?

Whether you ignore the 25% limitations, allow crafting, start at 6th level, and pay nothing for spells other than to obtain them, or whether you don't allow crafting, don't ignore limitations, and start at level 1, the argument that quick prep is on par with paragon surge is weak. Even if you can match in any way the versatility, you are paying out the nose to accomplish it.

Which is my point. This argument that a wizard or arcanist can maintain access to every meaningful spell for free is bunk. Even with everything slotted as you desired, with crafting and so forth, your theory arcanist is spending over half of his wealth by level on his spellbook. That's not easy.

Frankly, I don't like being accused of making trite strawman arguments, when the numbers speak for themselves.

Stark_ wrote:

At this point, I don't have any further interest in discussing this with you.

You have no interest because the argument that it is inexpensive to maintain such a spellbook, regardless of availability of feats, crafting variance, and so forth, is pretty easily debunked?

Whether you ignore the 25% limitations, allow crafting, start at 6th level, and pay nothing for spells other than to obtain them, or whether you don't allow crafting, don't ignore limitations, and start at level 1, the argument that quick prep is on par with paragon surge is weak. Even if you can match in any way the versatility, you are paying out the nose to accomplish it.

Which is my point. This argument that a wizard or arcanist can maintain access to every meaningful spell for free is bunk. Even with everything slotted as you desired, with crafting and so forth, your theory arcanist is spending over half of his wealth by level on his spellbook. That's not easy.

Frankly, I don't like being accused of making trite strawman arguments, when the numbers speak for themselves.

Then you should perhaps take it up with the people who accused your argument of being a strawman.

I'd be surprised if there were more than 10 spells of each spell level I'd like for utility purposes. Summon Monster alone is disgustingly powerful.

All this talk about having all the spells is pretty meaningless when all you need is maybe 10. The fact that crafting a Blessed Book makes it easy mode to have 40 of each spell level is just gravy.

The whole wealth argument is funky since if it's maybe not broken at 6th but totally busted at 10th then it's still busted.

Costs of 10 spells with fee charged from copying another wizard's spellbook.

1st: 150(50 with Blessed Book)
2nd: 600(200 with Blessed Book
3rd: 1350(450 with Blessed Book)
4th: 2,400(800 with Blessed Book)

Honestly, you could nerf or buff this class up or down and I'd still probably wanna play one.

Personally, even from the old days, I always found the wizard (then magic user) class a bit 'meh'. I love magic in fantasy fiction, but playing one never felt very magical. Like, I wanted Doctor Strange and got Harry Potter. And the variations since then improved it to various degrees, more or less, but never quite did it for me.

It just never felt like it empowered me like magic should. School options and metamagic went a bit towards fixing that, making me feel like I wasn't just pulling an effect out of a box. And both the witch and sorcerer went in the right direction, I think, of giving a bit of spooky and mysterious flavor. And I really enjoyed the direction they went in, giving different schools and institutions on Golarion different minor 'perks' for flavor. It does make me a bit sad when I see people ignoring that interesting flavor in favor of MMO-like mechanical advantages. Words of power seemed really neat, at first, but in the end the effects seemed less crative than the regular spells.

But, now this? This sort of looks like the sort of wizard I always WANTED to play. My own quirky little freak who'd do stuff I thought was neat, not just pick options off a spell list. So, yeah, as an old first generation geek, I think it looks extremely cool.

Zark wrote:

Scavion wrote:

I know quite a few GMs who dislike the binary nature of low levels where dice can kill your character without an being able to do a thing about it.

I know GM's that like low level games. There are ways to deal with binary nature of low levels. The GM can ignore crits when needed etc. Or remove enemy weapons like the Greataxe that have a x3 crit multiplier and replace it with a Greatsword or a Greatclub or whatever.

So they houserule to avoid it. Cool. That doesn't stop the baseline from being incredibly binary.

That is not what I said. I don’t say a GM should houserule to avoid problems. Nor do I say the shouldn't.

I know low level play, especially at level 1 has its problems, but low level play also has its rewards.
Same is true if you start at level 7. It has it rewards, but it also has it problems, one of them being that you actually haven’t played your character from level 1.

One of the things that annoys me with some Class guides is that what is a good build if you start from level X might not be good if you start at level 1. Sure a Bard with wisdom 7 isn’t a problem at level 10 if you start at level 10, but the same thing is far more challenging if you start from level 1.

I think Ogre’s point below is a good one.

[...] even if you don't start at 1st level, most characters in play have advanced significantly from whatever level they started. Using "built" characters as an example is only really relevant the first few sessions a character is played. Not representative of characters you see in routine play.

BTW, I didn’t mean to be snark.

I think all sides have their points, but can’t we wait and see what the book has to offer us?

Actually having lower modifiers at lower levels is less of an issue than it is at higher levels due to the binary nature of the game. So a Bard with 7 Wisdom isn't bad off at all.

One of the things that annoys me with some Class guides is that what is a good build if you start from level X might not be good if you start at level 1.

I make a point to build organic characters who function from level 1. A Wizard saving their gold to craft a Blessed Book is hardly crazy at all. What else are they going to purchase? For the same gold they can get a +1 Cloak of Resistance, a +2 Int Headband and some miscellaneous stuff. Eventually they'll have enough gold to get a Blessed Book no matter what game they're in. GM fiat aside.

Peter Stewart wrote:

Stark_ wrote:

At this point, I don't have any further interest in discussing this with you.

You have no interest because the argument that it is inexpensive to maintain such a spellbook, regardless of availability of feats, crafting variance, and so forth, is pretty easily debunked?

Frankly, I don't like being accused of making trite strawman arguments, when the numbers speak for themselves.

Then you should perhaps take it up with the people who accused your argument of being a strawman.

He was responding to your fallacious claim when he was accused of making a strawman argument, and you added said attack to your favorites.

Perhaps you should consider what you say, if you don't like hearing that it is wrong. Or at least where you say it. Paizo messageboards are hardly a pure echochamber.

Personally, I think the arcanist looks great. I hope they have better staying power than I saw them demonstrate in the playtest, but they look to be a fun change of pace for the standard wizards and sorcs.

Stark_ wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:

Stark_ wrote:

At this point, I don't have any further interest in discussing this with you.

You have no interest because the argument that it is inexpensive to maintain such a spellbook, regardless of availability of feats, crafting variance, and so forth, is pretty easily debunked?

Frankly, I don't like being accused of making trite strawman arguments, when the numbers speak for themselves.

Then you should perhaps take it up with the people who accused your argument of being a strawman.

He was responding to your fallacious claim when he was accused of making a strawman argument, and you added said attack to your favorites.

Perhaps you should consider what you say, if you don't like hearing that it is wrong. Or at least where you say it. Paizo messageboards are hardly a pure echochamber.

Personally, I think the arcanist looks great. I hope they have better staying power than I saw them demonstrate in the playtest, but they look to be a fun change of pace for the standard wizards and sorcs.

Calling my claim fallacious is no better than calling his a strawman. Since there are clearly a number of people falling on both sides of this argument, it's hardly fair to call it an echochamber either.

In any case. The task of cataloging the wizard's spell list to such an extent as to which spells are useful and which are not is both daunting and very subjective, so I'll revise my claim as such: The amount of options and versatility that the broad study exploit offers to the arcanist is extremely powerful, and comparable if inferior to the pre-nerf paragon surge. With the recent nerf of paragon surge itself to once a day and the arcanist's innately powerful spellcasting mechanic, explots, and ability to gain both bloodline arcana and school powers, the arcanist is worryingly powerful compared to the currently existing sorcerer and wizard.

Obviously, we'll have to see what the class looks like when it arrives, but I can only judge from what we've seen, and from what we've seen, the Arcanist looks extremely strong.

Obviously, we'll have to see what the class looks like when it arrives, but I can only judge from what we've seen, and from what we've seen, the Arcanist looks extremely strong.

Sure, but it's a full casting Arcane Class. It's going to be strong no matter what.

Had it not had the mechanic of Quick Study (which is still unusable in combat if you ask me) then nobody would play this class as it is inferior to a wizard, of that you can be sure, because to my knowledge, they cannot leave slots open to fill later like a wizard could.

Arguing that this one Exploit the class has breaks the game and makes the sky fall makes you seem very ignorant of actual game balance and game design. Also this back and forth is getting really annoying to read, neither of you have made any progress with the discussion.

I feel it is my civic duty to progress the discussion in way of Godwin's Law by saying that forcing all Arcanists to wait a whole 24 hour period in order to recall and change a spell prepared is basically Communism.

Had it not had the mechanic of Quick Study (which is still unusable in combat if you ask me) then nobody would play this class as it is inferior to a wizard, of that you can be sure, because to my knowledge, they cannot leave slots open to fill later like a wizard could.

I don't think anyone is particularly arguing that using the ability during combat is likely but that with even the mildest of scouting/divination it becomes far more potent. If you discover that your next encounter is with some enormous zombie dragon but didn't happen to prepare Command Undead then it is extremely helpful to just be able to switch it out.

As far as Peters arguments about spellook costs go it doesn't take much of a review of the spell list to realise that actually you don't need all of the spells ever printed. Lets assume you just want all of the CRB spells. The scribing costs for those, assuming 11 free level 1, 4 free 2-8 and 6 free 9th for an arcanist (Wizards get 8 but 9-10 level 1) are:

Level 1: 31 spells @ 10gp/spell for a cost of 310gp
Level 2: 47 spells @ 40gp/spell for a cost of 1880gp
Level 3: 42 spells @ 90gp/spell for a cost of 3780gp
Level 4: 38 spells @ 160gp/spell for a cost of 6080gp
Level 5: 43 spells @ 250gp/spell for a cost of 10750gp
Level 6: 43 spells @ 360gp/spell for a cost of 15480gp
Level 7: 36 spells @ 490gp/spell for a cost of 17640gp
Level 8: 33 spells @ 640gp/spell for a cost of 21120gp
Level 9: 18 spells @ 810gp/spell for a cost of 14580gp

So, lets break that down into total cost at each new spell level break point:

Level 4: 2190gp
Level 6: 5970gp
Level 8: 12050gp
Level 10: 22800gp
Level 12: 38280gp
Level 14: 55920gp
Level 16: 77500gp
Level 18: 92080gp

This assumes you do all of your own scribing without investing in Blessed Books. Now lets up all of the numbers by 50% to account for buying access and compare it to WBL at those levels:

Level 4: 3285gp.....6000gp
Level 6: 8955gp.....16000gp
Level 8: 18075gp....33000gp
Level 10: 34600gp...62000gp
Level 12: 57240gp...108000gp
Level 14: 83880gp...185000gp
Level 16: 116250gp..315000gp
Level 18: 138120gp..530000gp

Now these numbers look quite high so maybe Peter has a point. Except then we remember that you don't actually need to know every spell of every level. You probably barely need half of every level to have a solution of some form or other to any problem you might come across. That brings the overall cost to somewhere between 10 and 25% of your WBL.

Of course it also ignores the impact of the Blessed book. If you know every CRB spell then you have about 1700 levels of spells so you need all of two Blessed Books. That costs you 12.5k to make them yourself and you don't need you second until about level 14. Picking up the first by about level 8 is not unreasonable so even if you buy every level 1-3 spell (which you don't need to do) you have spent 8955gp on access and scribing, 6500gp on a book and you still have the better part of 20k to buy other stuff. After that point it just gets easier and easier as you no longer pay scribing costs. This makes your total costs for every CRB spell from level 8 onwards as follows:

Level 8: 11975gp....33000gp
Level 10: 17350gp....62000gp
Level 12: 25090gp....108000gp
Level 14: 33910gp....185000gp
Level 16: 44470gp....315000gp
Level 18: 51760gp....530000gp

So to conclude. Without a Blessed Book it costs you a decent amount of your WBL to have every CRB spell, generally around 50%. With the Blessed Book it takes about a third initially with that value gradually dropping as you level and gain more spells.

If you only want half of every CRB spell in the game then you are paying about 20% at level 8, dropping to about 5% by level 18. So in short no it is very easy for arcane casters to have access to an enormous range of spells throughout their career.

Monkerdoodle wrote:

Had it not had the mechanic of Quick Study (which is still unusable in combat if you ask me) then nobody would play this class as it is inferior to a wizard, of that you can be sure, because to my knowledge, they cannot leave slots open to fill later like a wizard could.

I don't think anyone is particularly arguing that using the ability during combat is likely but that with even the mildest of scouting/divination it becomes far more potent. If you discover that your next encounter is with some enormous zombie dragon but didn't happen to prepare Command Undead then it is extremely helpful to just be able to switch it out.

But a wizard can do the same thing with scouting by filling his empty slot?

andreww wrote:

Monkerdoodle wrote:

Had it not had the mechanic of Quick Study (which is still unusable in combat if you ask me) then nobody would play this class as it is inferior to a wizard, of that you can be sure, because to my knowledge, they cannot leave slots open to fill later like a wizard could.

I don't think anyone is particularly arguing that using the ability during combat is likely but that with even the mildest of scouting/divination it becomes far more potent. If you discover that your next encounter is with some enormous zombie dragon but didn't happen to prepare Command Undead then it is extremely helpful to just be able to switch it out.

But a wizard can do the same thing with scouting by filling his empty slot?

Your argument is incomplete as the wizard still has more options if not the same amount in actual practice. The playtests proved that.

Sure the wizard can do it once or twice as you cannot really afford to leave a lot of spell slots open. The arcanist can do it for every encounter if they need to. Both options are powerful. I for one don't think the Arcanist obsoletes the Wizard, I consider both classes to be incredibly powerful top tier classes.

I am concerned that on the information we have that there is almost no mechanical reason to play a non human FCB using sorcerer once it is printed. I can see lots of flavour and style reasons for going with the sorcerer and it still fills a niche of the non spell book dependant arcane caster but at the moment a larger pool of immediately accessible spells known is the only advantage it has and that is only available to humans, half elves, half orcs and aasimar. I think that is a particularly bad move for the game. It essentially punishes people for what should largely be a choice of flavour, in this case applicable race.

master_marshmallow wrote:

andreww wrote:

Monkerdoodle wrote:

Had it not had the mechanic of Quick Study (which is still unusable in combat if you ask me) then nobody would play this class as it is inferior to a wizard, of that you can be sure, because to my knowledge, they cannot leave slots open to fill later like a wizard could.

I don't think anyone is particularly arguing that using the ability during combat is likely but that with even the mildest of scouting/divination it becomes far more potent. If you discover that your next encounter is with some enormous zombie dragon but didn't happen to prepare Command Undead then it is extremely helpful to just be able to switch it out.

But a wizard can do the same thing with scouting by filling his empty slot?

Your argument is incomplete as the wizard still has more options if not the same amount in actual practice. The playtests proved that.

Sure the wizard can do it once or twice as you cannot really afford to leave a lot of spell slots open. The arcanist can do it for every encounter if they need to. Both options are powerful. I for one don't think the Arcanist obsoletes the Wizard, I consider both classes to be incredibly powerful top tier classes.

I am concerned that on the information we have that there is almost no mechanical reason to play a non human FCB using sorcerer once it is printed. I can lots of flavour and style reasons for going with the sorcerer and it still fills a niche of the non spell book dependant arcane caster but at the moment a larger pool of immediately accessible spells known is the only advantage it has and that is only available to humans, half elves, half orcs and aasimar. I think that is a particularly bad move for the game. It essentially punishes people for what should largely be a choice of flavour, in this case applicable race.

I do not think the game is as flawed as you think it is, this is an internet forum after all.

For those talking about the cost of scribing spells may I point out the Cypher Script feat. It makes any spell you scribe cost half as much in half the number of pages. (Rounded up)

He can cannibalise low level spellslots, and IIRC in the playtest even wand charges for reservoir if he really, really needs to.

Also... you are saying that reservoir abilities would be better than spells he could get from quick study. Think about that for a moment

It is entirely possible to make a fine sorcerer that doesn't take advantage of the favored class bonus.

As far as the arcanist having that option every fight? No, not if he wants to do anything else with his class abilities. Reservoir is a limited resource and it fuels all of his class abilities that aren't spells.

Sure you can make a perfectly playable sorcerer who doesn't use the human FCB but you will be quite significantly worse off than one who does and that difference will become larger the higher level you are. That doesn't mean you cant have fun with one or be successful as the sorcerer is still a very capable and enjoyable class which gets access to the entire list of arcane spells. It is very hard to suck when you get that.

However, there is no racial FCB option for sorcerers or oracles which comes close to being as good as having an extra 2 spells known of level 1-7 and 3 level 8 spells. Kitsune specialising in enchantment for disgusting DC's comes close but personally I struggle to live with the fewer spells known.

The FCB creates a distorting effect on which races are attractive for the sorcerer or oracle which is unfortunate. I actually think the FCB is a good thing for both classes, they needed that boost to their flexibility, it is just unfortunate that it is shackled to the race choice.

I'm not sure that comparing the wizard to the arcanist is worthwhile: Wizards get spells a level sooner, so I suspect the relationship will be that wizards are more powerful at odd levels (when they have an extra spell level) and arcanists are more powerful at even levels. That's fine. It means that on average, they're tied.

I'd be much more interested in comparisons with the sorcerer.

I think we've explored the spell book scribing debate quite enough for a thread that is not really about that issue. If folks want to continue to talk about the Arcanist, fine, but lets drop that particular discussion.

And please continue to watch the tone folks. I really don't want to have to lock a preview thread just because some folks can't discuss an issue without resorting to personal attacks.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

I think we've explored the spell book scribing debate quite enough for a thread that is not really about that issue. If folks want to continue to talk about the Arcanist, fine, but lets drop that particular discussion.

And please continue to watch the tone folks. I really don't want to have to lock a preview thread just because some folks can't discuss an issue without resorting to personal attacks.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Fair enough.

Can you tell us whether the arcanist is able to access the favoured class bonuses of its parent classes, in particular the extra spells known ability of humans. If it can do so do you think that has implications for the balance between the arcanist and the sorcerer?

Also can the arcanist benefit from the Expanded Arcana feat. In the playtest it had text in its write up about what happened if you gained additional spells known, in particular they converted to extra spells prepared. This seems intended to cover things like Expanded Arcana except that Expanded Arcana requires you to be a class with a limited list of spells known to take it which would mean the Arcanist doesn't qualify.

This question was asked a few times during the playtest but we never did get a response. Can you confirm one way or the other or do we have to wait for the book to come out?