Advanced Class Guide Preview: Arcanist

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

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?

I don't think the class needs these options, so my guess would be that you have to waste resources and use Quick Study to gain access to more spells prepared than is available in the table.

Allowing otherwise would be indicative of game design imbalance and I don't think anyone wants that.

From the playtest document:

An arcanist’s may know any number of spells, but the number she can prepare each day is limited. At 1st level, she can prepare four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells each day. At each new arcanist level, the number of spells she can prepare each day increases, adding new spell levels as indicated on Table 1–2. Unlike the number of spells she can cast per day, the number of spells an arcanist can prepare each day is not affected by her Intelligence score. Feats and other effects that modify the number of spells known by a spellcaster affect the number of spells the arcanist can prepare.

It certainly seems like the intention was that the Human FCB and Expanded Arcana would work for the Arcanist.

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?

To avoid going down an endless rabbit hole of questions, I am afraid you will need to wait until the book comes out to get these answers.

But I can tell you this, there are answers in the book.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Thanks for that, as long as there are answers I am happy with it.

From the playtest document:

Quote:

An arcanist’s may know any number of spells, but the number she can prepare each day is limited. At 1st level, she can prepare four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells each day. At each new arcanist level, the number of spells she can prepare each day increases, adding new spell levels as indicated on Table 1–2. Unlike the number of spells she can cast per day, the number of spells an arcanist can prepare each day is not affected by her Intelligence score. Feats and other effects that modify the number of spells known by a spellcaster affect the number of spells the arcanist can prepare.

It certainly seems like the intention was that the Human FCB and Expanded Arcana would work for the Arcanist.

While I too would love something so powerful, I don't think either works. Unless we go back to the idea of the Arcanist being a Alternate class of Wizard and Sorcerer. Was that actually officially not the way Arcanist works anymore? I just know you can multiclass with them now. If you can have the same FCBs, then that works just fine. But I figure Arcanist will have it's own similarly powerful FCB. As much as it might be powerful, potentially overly so, maybe even extra spells prepared. My fingers are crossed for it, personally.

As for Expanded Arcana, that can't work, because you don't meet the prerequisites.

"Special: You can only take this feat if you possess levels in a class whose spellcasting relies on a limited list of spells known, such as the bard, oracle, and sorcerer. You can gain Expanded Arcana multiple times."

But you aren't relying on a limited list of spells known, just prepared. As so systematically detailed earlier in the thread, spells known is NOT an issue.

To kinda shift gears a bit, I wonder if they are going to produce a prestige class like the one that appeared in late 3.5 that combined 2 different arcane spellcasters in a manner similar to the mystic theurge. It's an interesting concept, and I would be interested in seeing it explored again.

I see a lot of comments on Quick Study? It seems more like something you would use out of combat to increase your utility right?

I normally see wizards and sorcerers attempting to make something happen in the combat encounters I have played in: fireball, force cage, summon monster, sleep.

On the off chance that you made ALL the wrong decisions that morning for your set-up it seems cool that you have the option of removing some of your "on the fly" magic to reset your spells. The PARTY benefits from a wizard who is able to cast Augury at the fork in the road.

I also wonder if something similar will not be newly available to the Wizard class when the update is made? Perhaps ALL of the spell-casters will gain this sort of Enhanced spellbility?

To paraphrase Syndrome: "Because if everyone is overpowered. Then noone will be."

... but I also fear being ostrasized by strangers so to hedge my bets: BOO! BAD FORM PAIZO! HOW DARE YOU MAKE SOMETHING MEGA AWESOME! SHAME UPON YOUR HOUSE!

:)

** spoiler omitted **

I shouldn't say... but you seem Sane so... Among other things: a half eaten poptart of the psuedo-ethnic demi-god of partially finished kitchen ranges.

Justin Sane wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

I shouldn't say... but you seem Sane so... Among other things: a half eaten poptart of the psuedo-ethnic demi-god of partially finished kitchen ranges.

I am sorry, you are simply too close to Noel Edmonds and the worlds worst television program.

Ooh, this looks fun! I'm hoping that the Quick Study is a replacement for some of the counterspell shenanigans that playtest had going on. Switching spells on the fly, while useful, isn't something that's going to shut down caster bosses with ease. I like Sorcerers' ability to casually sling spells even for silly things; it'll be nice to have a "Wizard" where I can take a similarly cavalier attitude about preparing the morning spells.

...

The PARTY benefits from a wizard who is able to cast Augury at the fork in the road.
...

:)

So the party Will benefit from the wizard being a cleric?

What's in the box? wrote:

...

The PARTY benefits from a wizard who is able to cast Augury at the fork in the road.
...

:)

So the party Will benefit from the wizard being a cleric?

Yes the party Will benefit from having someone along that Can fix every thing but the players May enjoy more that the powers are a bit divided.
Giving everything to the arcane casters, as seem to be what you are suggesting, May not be the solution.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure arcane casters need full BAB, d12 HD, an extra 15 bonus feats, and they need to be able to take like 5 turns in one round.

I think that would be fair, casters so UP. [/teasing]

I see a lot of comments on Quick Study? It seems more like something you would use out of combat to increase your utility right?

I normally see wizards and sorcerers attempting to make something happen in the combat encounters I have played in: fireball, force cage, summon monster, sleep.

On the off chance that you made ALL the wrong decisions that morning for your set-up it seems cool that you have the option of removing some of your "on the fly" magic to reset your spells. The PARTY benefits from a wizard who is able to cast Augury at the fork in the road.

I also wonder if something similar will not be newly available to the Wizard class when the update is made? Perhaps ALL of the spell-casters will gain this sort of Enhanced spellbility?

To paraphrase Syndrome: "Because if everyone is overpowered. Then noone will be."

... but I also fear being ostrasized by strangers so to hedge my bets: BOO! BAD FORM PAIZO! HOW DARE YOU MAKE SOMETHING MEGA AWESOME! SHAME UPON YOUR HOUSE!

:)

From what I have heard there will be an Archetype of the Wizard to use some of the arcanist stuff. So they will most likely get access to quick study.

From what I have heard there will be an Archetype of the Wizard to use some of the arcanist stuff. So they will most likely get access to quick study.

Oh joy.

Just what the Wizard needed.

so uh, are the elemental exploits still terrible (ESPECIALLY the lightning one)?

so uh, are the elemental exploits still terrible (ESPECIALLY the lightning one)?

You'll find out in only a few short weeks!

AndIMustMask wrote:

so uh, are the elemental exploits still terrible (ESPECIALLY the lightning one)?

You'll find out in only a few short weeks!

completely unhelpful, but thanks. I'm mostly just wondering if I'm going to have to sit and be disappointed by a large chunk of the arcanists exploits and greater exploits. i mean sure, they're plenty broke regardless of them, but signing off a whole portion of a class' options as 'completely useless just cast a spell and spend that arcane point to buff it' seems too... rogue-like for my tastes.

this class is so unnecessary.

Cthulhudrew wrote:

AndIMustMask wrote:

so uh, are the elemental exploits still terrible (ESPECIALLY the lightning one)?

You'll find out in only a few short weeks!

completely unhelpful, but thanks.

His point is that we don't have any information post-playtest on the thing you asked for. Paizo isn't releasing further information than what's in the preview, and the elemental exploits were obviously not included. So until the book is out, we don't know and Paizo isn't telling.

this class is so unnecessary.

No, it is not.

The only uneccessary classes were Hunters and Arcanists. Fusions of two overly similar classes that have very little identity of their own.

Instead we could have gotten
A rogue/wizard
A cleric/wizard
A Druid/Paladin
A Ranger/Paladin
A Paladin/Antipaladin (focus on balance True Neutral)
More Paladin allignments.

Insain Dragoon, just because you're not interested in something does mean no one is. Likewise, just because you want something, it does not mean everyone else does.

Also, there are lots of archetypes in this book. Some of those combinations might exist.

However, I am curious, though perhaps this is a topic for another thread, what exactly do you expect a Druid/paladin to do? Likewise a true neutral paladin?

Those two concept are probably pretty similar. So a LG Paladin is all about upholding a code of justice and rightousness. A CE Antipaladin is all about upholding a code of destruction and lawlessness. On the allignment chart those two allignment are opposite corners and True neutral is conecting them. A true neutral code could probably be associated with being arbiters of balance within the world and the conflicting and neccessary forces of Law and Chaos.

I've never met anyone whos character concept was Sorceror+wizard, but I've met plently who wished they could play an Arcane Trickster type of class that was viable. As for Hunter, it could have a direction if they actually make it into a Beastmaster class, but as it was in the playtest it was a bad Ranger and Bad Druid.

I believe if they picked out some class fusions of popular, but difficult to make and often less than viable concepts.

The rogue/ wizard would be awesome. I've got lots of love for the sneaky casters and loved the unseen seer.

The rest, I'd pass on. The paladin is already something of a hybrid class by nature so seems a strange choice for this treatment. I find it particularly odd that you complain about fusions of classes that are too similar then propose a ranger/ paladin and paladin/ anti-paladin. The latter is a class paired with a variant of itself, sort of like suggesting a rogue/ ninja merger. The ranger/ paladin could arguably make a decent paladin or ranger archetype, but it don't make sense to build a full new class when the two overlap so much already.

Those two concept are probably pretty similar. So a LG Paladin is all about upholding a code of justice and rightousness. A CE Antipaladin is all about upholding a code of destruction and lawlessness. On the allignment chart those two allignment are opposite corners and True neutral is conecting them. A true neutral code could probably be associated with being arbiters of balance within the world and the conflicting and neccessary forces of Law and Chaos.

I've never met anyone whos character concept was Sorceror+wizard, but I've met plently who wished they could play an Arcane Trickster type of class that was viable. As for Hunter, it could have a direction if they actually make it into a Beastmaster class, but as it was in the playtest it was a bad Ranger and Bad Druid.

I believe if they picked out some class fusions of popular, but difficult to make and often less than viable concepts.

The thing that interests me the most about the Arcanist class at the moment is the white mage archetype; if it turns out to be a viable healer then I may try one out.

I've never met anyone whos character concept was Sorceror+wizard...

There was actually a prestige class which did this in 3.5. It was a bit silly though.

The one that makes me scratch my head is the warpriest, the cleric is already a divine caster who has weapons and armor and domain based bonuses. I don't know a lot of people who multi-classed cleric and fighter either. Edit: Also, Paladin, Anti-Paladin, and Inquisitor. Lots of divine butt-kicking in the game prior to this book

These are hybrid classes though, which are not equivalent to multi classing. It's a peanut butter and chocolate thing. In the case of the arcanist, it's not a "sorcerer/ wizard", it's "You got your prepared spells in my spontaneous casting". And the result is something different and IMO better than the pure wizard. The idea of separating spells per day and spells prepared is far more intuitive to me than the current system of prepared spells and I've met a fair number of new players who mis-understand the Vancian wizard mechanics and expect that they can cast a spell multiple times a day.

There are a lot of different opinions on which classes in the book should have been left off and which additional ones should be added, it's kind of the nature of the beast.

Agreed, everything we've been saying is subjective based on personal experiences and tastes. Just because I find that certain classes were unnecessary doesn't mean everyone should agree.

I think most can agree that a "Arcane Trickster" class would have been a very cool advanced class but would disagree with which classes don't particularly belong.

Also Redward, reducing the idea of a Paragon of neutrality down to a "convenient smite everything class" is very misleading considering their is open design space for it and it fits thematically in the allignment system that Paladins and Antipaladins fit into.

The one that makes me scratch my head is the warpriest, the cleric is already a divine caster who has weapons and armor and domain based bonuses. I don't know a lot of people who multi-classed cleric and fighter either.

an unsolicited perspective from a GM running nonstandard games

The rogue/ wizard would be awesome. I've got lots of love for the sneaky casters and loved the unseen seer.

Arcane Trickster on one end, Beguiler on the other, there's a lot of range for magical rogue sort.

We can call it the Grey Mouser!

I think you'll see the lowest number of opposition if you spoke for removing the hunter.

I personally don't think that the Arcanist is a bad class, it has plenty of RP potential, it has interesting mechanics and if the arcane exploits are worth it then it may end up a little MADer than the average arcane caster, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

I'll just say that the mechanics of the Arcanist makes playing a scholarly-type caster actually palatable to me. I'm not the biggest fan of prepared-style casters.

Dennis Baker wrote:

The one that makes me scratch my head is the warpriest, the cleric is already a divine caster who has weapons and armor and domain based bonuses. I don't know a lot of people who multi-classed cleric and fighter either.

an unsolicited perspective from a GM running nonstandard games

I refuse to allow regular clerics; I always insist my players use the cloistered cleric since it fits into my definition of a "priest with spells". For me, the warpriest will fit into the role of a "fighting priest". Additionally, the shaman will fit into the cleric-druid gap. These classes will make my games so much easier to run.

How can the cloisted cleric be the priest with spells when the standard prist is better spellcater?

I think most can agree that a "Arcane Trickster" class would have been a very cool advanced class but would disagree with which classes don't particularly belong.

I'm not sure there is a consensus at all, but definitely would have been one of my choices.

Incidentally, there are a couple of rogue archetypes in the book which touch on this, but they are most definitely rogue archetypes, far short of a true arcane trickster. There's a PDF from game trade magazine with them floating around.

Also, from this guy might scratch that itch a little:

But I'm sure you've been wondering "Mark, when are you going to get to that glowy purply shadow guy. He looks awesome!" That, my friends, is the stygian slayer, a killer imbued with the darkest shadows. He can cast invisibility, use wands and scrolls of a few thematic spells without a Use Magic Device Check, and turn into an inky black cloud that obscures vision. "

Necromancer wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

The one that makes me scratch my head is the warpriest, the cleric is already a divine caster who has weapons and armor and domain based bonuses. I don't know a lot of people who multi-classed cleric and fighter either.

an unsolicited perspective from a GM running nonstandard games

I refuse to allow regular clerics; I always insist my players use the cloistered cleric since it fits into my definition of a "priest with spells". For me, the warpriest will fit into the role of a "fighting priest". Additionally, the shaman will fit into the cleric-druid gap. These classes will make my games so much easier to run.

How can the cloisted cleric be the priest with spells when the standard prist is better spellcater?

It's because I value flavor over mechanics in most cases.

The standard cleric might be a better caster than the cloistered archetype, but the cloistered cleric is a better priest than the regular cleric. The archetype fits the role of a medieval monk dabbling in magic. In my games, divine magic doesn't originate from deities. The role of "priest" can be taken by anyone as it's a political title and priests with magic are quite rare. With alchemists handling the majority of the healing, standard clerics aren't vital to my games.

My two cents -

The arcanist class seems to be perfect for a player that is new to the magic system, and can't decide between wizard and sorcerer.

I agree, it is overpowered. In home games I would never allow an experienced player touch this class unless it is a very over the top campaign.

For brand new players, or players that want to play a mage, yet are afraid of all the spells; the arcanist is perfect as a training wheel class to learn magic and stay a few levels with a character.

Granted, there are people with such system mastery that wouldn't need a training wheel mage character, yet that is a tangent for another thread.

There is already a rogue/wizard hybrid: The Bard.

High skills: Check
Arcane spells: Check
Sneaky: Check

That is a valid argument, though it doesn't help people who want something that's a more traditional Grey Mouse.

That is a valid argument, though it doesn't help people who want something that's a more traditional Grey Mouse.

The Greensting Slayer magus probably does what you want, albeit not that well.

I would have loved to see a Monk/Inquisitor, or a Monk/Magus hybrid (maybe both!) in place of either the Arcanist or the Hunter.

That's the most important thing. Yes arcane trickster PrC exists, but it's pretty far from a good option and being a sneaky bard is a lot more effective.

An Arcane Trickster style class, or an archetype that modifies a class very much. I mean we have archetypes that take away Bloodrager, Paladin, and Ranger casting. An archetype to do the opposite would probably make sense.

Agreed, everything we've been saying is subjective based on personal experiences and tastes. Just because I find that certain classes were unnecessary doesn't mean everyone should agree.

I think most can agree that a "Arcane Trickster" class would have been a very cool advanced class but would disagree with which classes don't particularly belong.

Also Redward, reducing the idea of a Paragon of neutrality down to a "convenient smite everything class" is very misleading considering their is open design space for it and it fits thematically in the allignment system that Paladins and Antipaladins fit into.

My point was that the Paladin and Antipaladin are the paragons of idealogical extremes. A neutral extremist is an oxymoron, and with the alignment system being as flawed as it is, I have no idea how you'd tie class powers to neutrality. For every orphan you save you have to let one die? But if you really wanted to make a neutral holy warrior, I think you'd want to look at some kind of Druid/Fighter hybrid.

On topic, I think the Arcanist is going to be the exact thing I've always wanted from an arcane spellcasting class. I find prepared casting to be uncomfortable and counter-intuitive and I've never been to fond of bloodlines. The Arcanist has everything I want and nothing I don't. It could very well be over-powered compared to the other two, but I think its spells/day will be far more limiting than a lot of the theorycraft is saying.

I'm listening to the Grey Mouser stories right now and read them many years ago. As far as I know, he doesn't do any actual spellcasting (maybe none?). The current rogue or the slayer (edit: or even Swashbuckler) are much closer to a "Mouser" type character then the Arcane Trickster.

Sneak attacking with rays of fire... definitely not part of the Gray Mouser's bag of tricks.

Thematically the Arcanist doesn't really fill a distinct niche, but I would say mechanically it does. It's much closer to what I want from a Wizard than a wizard is, as I don't really enjoy the fiddly nature of how wizards prepare and use their spells.

Well, Jason did tease a mouser archetype, we just don't know which class it modifies.

And those who want a arcane trickster-style class can grab the spiderhawk magus archetype in last year's Wayfinder #10.

I'm listening to the Grey Mouser stories right now and read them many years ago. As far as I know, he doesn't do any actual spellcasting (maybe none?).

He certainly seems to do some in The Unholy Grail, but that's the only place I recall offhand.

The one that makes me scratch my head is the warpriest, the cleric is already a divine caster who has weapons and armor and domain based bonuses. I don't know a lot of people who multi-classed cleric and fighter either. Edit: Also, Paladin, Anti-Paladin, and Inquisitor. Lots of divine butt-kicking in the game prior to this book

I know I've said this before, but I think it's a bit of a legacy problem. The cleric (and Druid) got 3/4 BAB because the cleric had to cover 'caster-priest' as well as any non-paladin holy warrior when only core was available. If clerics and Druids had 1/2 BAB like the othe 9th level casters, then there would be a lot more demand (and need) for the warpriest and hunter.

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. .

So basically what you want out of a magician is a comic book superhero, not a classic literary spellcaster. Because that is what Dr. Strange is. he fires off spells pretty much the same way that other characters throw up force fields and energy blasts.

I'll just say that the mechanics of the Arcanist makes playing a scholarly-type caster actually palatable to me. I'm not the biggest fan of prepared-style casters.

Seconded. As I've said many times in this thread, now I can play the highly-intelligent, casts-from-a-book mage archetype without having to deal with prepared casting or fiddle with weirdly trying to reflavor a sorcerer or psionicist.