Advanced Class Guide Preview: Arcanist

Empiricist makes me think of Alaeron from City of the Fallen Sky. But it does have the 'ist' suffix. It could be an arcanist archetype, but I can also imagine something with that name as an alchemist, wizard, or magus archetype.

To those suggesting an action to draw a spell book before spending a full round switching spells, i say "Quick Draw". Or if you are playing a Gnome, a spring loaded book sheath. Possibly mounted on a wrist or neck but hip is acceptable for the old school, purist, gnomes.

Lemmy wrote:

Yup. But raising your casting attribute doesn't give you more spells known.

Raising her casting stat gives the arcanist more spells per day, not spells prepared.

Exactly, and the only thing Sorcerers have over Arcanist is spells per day.

you can't compare a buffed arcanist to an unbuffed sorcerer.

I'm not.

To those suggesting an action to draw a spell book before spending a full round switching spells, i say "Quick Draw". Or if you are playing a Gnome, a spring loaded book sheath. Possibly mounted on a wrist or neck but hip is acceptable for the old school, purist, gnomes.

Quick draw only works with weapons. And only then if they aren't tucked in the bottom of a bag somewhere.

Even with Quick Draw, you're taking a full round action to swap the spell. Unless you're pulling more shenannigans to then Quick Draw a quicken metamagic rod if you want the spell that turn.

But sure, spend a feat to do, once again, what other spellcasters can do with a handy haversack and a pile of scrolls.

If I recall the Gunslinger was considered much too strong in the Playtest and so was the Magus, but both are much more in line now.

The Gunslinger still suffers from most of the problems noted in the playtest, and is still probably the most poorly designed class Paizo has released to date. Attempting to balance a class with potentially brutal critical failures (that several builds can simply ignore with the right selection of feats, magic items, or racial favored class bonuses) and gold expenditure (which is incredibly swingy and dependent on the campaign) were really major design mistakes. The class is still capable of the ol' 19-attacks-against-touch-AC-with-no-misfire-chance-dealing-boatloads-of-dam age trick, and can take ludicrous penalties with little consequence since it targets a defense that generally scales down at the same rate his attack bonus is scaling up.

Fortunately I really don't think we have a mess like the Gunslinger in any of the new ACG classes. The Arcanist is probably the biggest concern as regards something being OP, and really, it can't actually do all that much more (if anything) than a well prepared wizard was already capable of. The same cash the Arcanist is spending on magic missile wand lollipops to recharge his resevoir can be spent by the wizard to ensure he's always got a handy collection of scrolls available as his own "silver bullets". The Sorcerer is probably in the most danger of finding himself looking for work, but the Sorcerer also has some of the best staying power of any of the arcane casting classes, so I imagine he'll still have a fairly solid niche.

Exactly, and the only thing Sorcerers have over Arcanist is spells per day.

He said, not yet reading the final version of the class.

The sky has yet to fall my friend.

Torbyne wrote:

To those suggesting an action to draw a spell book before spending a full round switching spells, i say "Quick Draw". Or if you are playing a Gnome, a spring loaded book sheath. Possibly mounted on a wrist or neck but hip is acceptable for the old school, purist, gnomes.

Quick draw only works with weapons. And only then if they aren't tucked in the bottom of a bag somewhere.

Even with Quick Draw, you're taking a full round action to swap the spell. Unless you're pulling more shenannigans to then Quick Draw a quicken metamagic rod if you want the spell that turn.

But sure, spend a feat to do, once again, what other spellcasters can do with a handy haversack and a pile of scrolls.

Saying that it's what other casters can do with scrolls isn't exactly true. Scrolls are going to have (probably) underwhelming caster levels and very bad save DCs. An arcanist can use their full power, or expend more from their reservoir to boost their spell.

To those suggesting an action to draw a spell book before spending a full round switching spells, i say "Quick Draw". Or if you are playing a Gnome, a spring loaded book sheath. Possibly mounted on a wrist or neck but hip is acceptable for the old school, purist, gnomes.

Actually Quick Draw only allows for weapons being drawn the mythic version of quick draw can grab item.

Edit: Ninja'd

Lemmy wrote:

Exactly, and the only thing Sorcerers have over Arcanist is spells per day.

He said, not yet reading the final version of the class.

The sky has yet to fall my friend.

I'm not making any comment about falling skies. I'm not even presuming Arcanists got even more stuff from still not revealed material. All I'm saying is that judging by the playtest version and this preview, Arcanists are extremely powerful and mechanically superior to Sorcerers.

Nothing so far indicates otherwise.

Empiricist makes me think of Alaeron from City of the Fallen Sky. But it does have the 'ist' suffix. It could be an arcanist archetype, but I can also imagine something with that name as an alchemist, wizard, or magus archetype.

I was figuring on Empiricist as an Alchemist as well, just because of the presumed root of "empirical", but now that it's been brought up I'm not sure I can imagine exactly how an Empiricist Alchemist would be different than any other Alchemist.

Might be neat if it's an Alchemist archetype with a unique way of utilizing Arcanist class abilities, like exploits.

Torbyne wrote:

To those suggesting an action to draw a spell book before spending a full round switching spells, i say "Quick Draw". Or if you are playing a Gnome, a spring loaded book sheath. Possibly mounted on a wrist or neck but hip is acceptable for the old school, purist, gnomes.

Actually Quick Draw only allows for weapons being drawn the mythic version of quick draw can grab item.

Edit: Ninja'd

Well if everyone wants to be that strict with the idea of a weapon (come on, the book is basically the little red switch to launch a nuke, think on a bigger scale and it is deffinetly a weapon :P) What about a Tiefling's tail, cant they use it to retrieve an item stored on themselves? Still speeds up the process.

Ross Byers wrote:

Empiricist makes me think of Alaeron from City of the Fallen Sky. But it does have the 'ist' suffix. It could be an arcanist archetype, but I can also imagine something with that name as an alchemist, wizard, or magus archetype.

I was figuring on Empiricist as an Alchemist as well, just because of the presumed root of "empirical", but now that it's been brought up I'm not sure I can imagine exactly how an Empiricist Alchemist would be different than any other Alchemist.

Might be neat if it's an Alchemist archetype with a unique way of utilizing Arcanist class abilities, like exploits.

I do like that idea of an Alchemist using Exploits. Maybe add spells to bombs like baleful polymorph.

Saying that it's what other casters can do with scrolls isn't exactly true. Scrolls are going to have (probably) underwhelming caster levels and very bad save DCs. An arcanist can use their full power, or expend more from their reservoir to boost their spell.

I'm not trying to say it's valueless. I'm just trying to put some perspective on the action cost.

Quick Study's purpose is to fetch you a spell that is in your spellbook but you do not have prepared. A wizard with a bonded item can already do that once a day for far less action cost.

Quick Study's payoff outside of combat is the same as a wizard leaving a spell slot open or a sorcerer having a portfolio of scrolls of utility spells like knock.

In combat, it costs a good amount of actions to use (or on resources spent avoiding those actions, like Quick Draw, extra limbs, etc.) In most cases, I'd rather cast two somewhat effective spells than one very effective spell. So I'm imagining the major uses are things like reactive spells (e.g. protection from energy when you weren't expecting to meet a dragon that day, or stone to flesh when the fighter just got petrified) where you don't care about the DC, or targeted weaknesses (where the DC is relevant, but the target is going to be bad at it anyway).

There will absolutely be cases where Quick Study shines, and a scroll just wouldn't have been good enough. But there will also be cases where an arcanist with Quick Study wishes they had some other exploit that would solve their problem on its own.

Lemmy wrote:

Everything Sorcerers do, Arcanists can do better.

Sorcerers are easier to play with less system mastery.

I"m going to lightly quibble here. I honestly think that in many ways a Sorcerer and Wizard are equal in regards to system mastery required to play them, and I wouldn't expect the Arcanist to be harder. A sorcerer is easier to play in session, but is far easier to mess up as your character progresses. Pick a few wrong spells known, along with a bloodline that doesn't fully mesh with those spell selections, and you've got a very badly gimped sorcerer.

In theory, the Arcanist would gain the ease of playing a sorcerer (you could in theory just pick spells known, and run them every day), along with the inability to be completely screwed like a wizard (if spells aren't helpful, write some new ones down).

That said, if I had the choice between handing a player new to casting either a prebuilt sorcerer or wizard, I would still pick the sorcerer every time. I don't know where the arcanist slots in yet.

From easiest to play to hardest,

Sorcerer ---> Arcainist ---> Wizard

here"s why.

Sorcerer:The bloodline in many way's tells the player how the sorcerer is played starting off with a good number of spells and only needs to scan through a small number of spells to cast spontaneously. the powers gained are also pretty much streamline in adding them as one levels up. minimal class options to deal with.

Arcainist:Spellcasting is slightly more complex in having to deal with a larger number of spells from their spellbook. However while their are less spells per day they prepare more spells than necessary allowing for room for error. they will need to select exploits as they advance to complement their style. so they will need to choose with care.

Wizard: Spellcasting must be prepared beforehand with limited class abilities to customize with. spells must be chosen with care and ready to relay on a few reliable spells in case something goes wrong. however specialization allows for the wizard to excel in a field of magic selected.

I'll just put my two cp in here...

I really liked the difference between the first playtest version of the Arcanist and the second. I imagine that the final version goes along the same lines and I'll love it.

Some things are still worrying though. Despite having fewer spell slots per day being able to absolutely master and 'hack' those spells does make it more powerful than it's parent classes. It's less relevant to me because I always find ways to refuse my players 15 minute adventure days. But will this class be troublesome in PFS? I'm guessing the nerf mentioned is hefty enough where spellhacking isn't an issue.

My problem with the class is that it take away from the wizard in the flavor departement. Until not that long ago, and even more with arcane discoveries, wizards was the folks that undestood magic, the magic engeneers and scientists the guys that pushed the borders of reality. Now they are guys with spells but a new class have take most of the flavor. Every wizard i have ever played and most of the ones i have read about in books fit the arcanist description better. Pehaps the guys that love knigths felt like this when the cavalier came and became the knigth and figther was no longer the choice for this fantasy hero type. I dont Care if it is OP i Will just houserule it a bit but i Think every great wizard in most worlds Will turn out to have been Arcanists. Just like most rogues Will have been slagers and investigators. The rogue type hero needed a save. The wizard fulfilled his role fine and the arcanist is taking form that. But i look forvard to playing one if my GM Will let me.

Not really sure I agree. I see three real nitches here.

1. I have innate magic that I use as I will.
2. I have innate magic that I've been taught to use.
3. I study the secrets of the universe to wield magics.

I think Sorcerer, Arcanist, and Wizard each satisfy one of the three pretty well. I can think of characters that I built in the past as wizards that I would rebuild as arcanists, but I can also think of characters that would remain firmly in the wizard / sorcerer slot.

Quick Study's payoff outside of combat is the same as a wizard leaving a spell slot open or a sorcerer having a portfolio of scrolls of utility spells like knock.

The issue I have with quick study is that it is very easy to do it multiple times. Wizards can leave spell slots open but if you leave lots open you risk running into problems. A single arcane pool point is an extremely low cost for an exceptional amount of flexibility.

Also how many wizards nowadays actually take arcane bond? I though initiative boosting dinosaurs or wand using improved familiars were all the rage?

As far as the arcanist versus vanilla sorcerer goes there is very little reason to take a non human sorcerer anymore. As a sorcerer you get a small number of extra spell slots, irrelevant from mid level onwards, an extra fixed bloodline spell known and a small number of often terrible bloodline powers.

Meanwhile the arcanist gets to poach their pick of bloodline arcana, school powers and has access to powerful exploit options while still being able to change their daily allotment of spells. Human (and half elf, half orc and some aasimar) Sorcerers retain a niche due to the human FCB being so powerful but it isn't clear if the new classes will be able to access parent class FCB's. If they can then even that goes away and all you are left with is paragon surge shenanigans which mean it doesn't really matter what caster class you play as you get access to your entire list regardless.

The issue I have with quick study is that it is very easy to do it multiple times. Wizards can leave spell slots open but if you leave lots open you risk running into problems. A single arcane pool point is an extremely low cost for an exceptional amount of flexibility.

They already have Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat. It's extremely possible, and extremely easy, for every arcanist to have a scroll of every spell in their spellbook. Especially for the out-of-combat utility spells, that solves a lot of problems. (Also, recall that you probably want to swap the utility spell back to a combat spell afterward. That might take two arcane points.)

Also how many wizards nowadays actually take arcane bond? I though initiative boosting dinosaurs or wand using improved familiars were all the rage?

The metagame du jour isn't relevant here. My point is that if such an ability broke the game, arcane bond wizards would have broken it already.

As far as the arcanist versus vanilla sorcerer goes there is very little reason to take a non human sorcerer anymore. As a sorcerer you get a small number of extra spell slots, irrelevant from mid level onwards, an extra fixed bloodline spell known and a small number of often terrible bloodline powers.

Purely mechanically speaking, you might be right. But I have a few Pathfinder sorcerers I've built that I wouldn't rebuild as an arcanist, because the bloodline flavor and the restrictions of sorcerer spell selection are evocative for me. Different classes appeal to different people for different reasons.

But it does have the 'ist' suffix.

Just in case the occultist indicates that '-ist' is a common way of naming arcanist archetypes (yes, this is a bit of a limb to climb out on), there's the naturalist and primalist in addition to the empiricist.

Ross Byers wrote:

Quick Study's payoff outside of combat is the same as a wizard leaving a spell slot open or a sorcerer having a portfolio of scrolls of utility spells like knock.

The issue I have with quick study is that it is very easy to do it multiple times. Wizards can leave spell slots open but if you leave lots open you risk running into problems. A single arcane pool point is an extremely low cost for an exceptional amount of flexibility.

I think you're underestimating the cost, though. As Ross noted above, unless you want the one second-level spell you can cast for the rest of the day to be knock, you have to switch it back to whatever it was you had prepped before after you use it - so you're looking at 2 arcane points and 2 full-round actions. And the base pool's size is hard to judge without seeing the full class (since we know it's not being calculated the same), but it isn't going to be very big, so you're looking at potentially giving up other spell slots (which you don't have to spare the way a sorcerer does), assuming that ability still exists, or just not being able to do it very often even if you do nothing else with your arcane pool.

My problem with the class is that it take away from the wizard in the flavor departement. Until not that long ago, and even more with arcane discoveries, wizards was the folks that undestood magic, the magic engeneers and scientists the guys that pushed the borders of reality. Now they are guys with spells but a new class have take most of the flavor. Every wizard i have ever played and most of the ones i have read about in books fit the arcanist description better. Pehaps the guys that love knigths felt like this when the cavalier came and became the knigth and figther was no longer the choice for this fantasy hero type. I dont Care if it is OP i Will just houserule it a bit but i Think every great wizard in most worlds Will turn out to have been Arcanists. Just like most rogues Will have been slagers and investigators. The rogue type hero needed a save. The wizard fulfilled his role fine and the arcanist is taking form that. But i look forvard to playing one if my GM Will let me.

I personally think this is a good thing, but as stated before that's my dislike of prepared casting talking =)

I dunno, I just really love the archetypical image of the learned spellcaster with the magic book, but hate the mechanics behind the wizard. Arcanist will let me have that flavor without having to deal with the crunch of a class I don't enjoy playing.

I imagine the Wizard will remain with many fans who are more fond of prepared casting and don't care for spont, or want the earlier spell access, the array of bonus feats and discoveries, and the greater spells per day without use of feats and items. As such I don't see the Arcanist stealing the Wizard's flavor so much as sharing it.

K177Y C47 wrote:

Oh.. that Elemental master... it is gonna get scary...

I can just see thing:

Crosblooded Sorcerer (Dragonic/Orc) 1
Elemental master Arcanist X
Bloodline Development (Elemental or one of the Genies)

You thought the Sorc 1/Wizard X blaster got scary...

Add in that Arcanists can crank up DCs/CLs AND are some of the best at abusing meta-magic... things are gonna get scary in the blaster world....

Here's the thing to remember though.... The Arcanist (or any of the other classes in the ACG playtest) CAN'T multiclass with a class that makes up it's core. In the case of the Arcanist, there can be no Sorcerer/Arcanist or Wizard/Arcanist characters without house ruling it.....

Just a thought. :)

That restriction went away. This was called out in the first ACG preview blog.

Cap. Darling wrote:

Stuff...

Not really sure I agree. I see three real nitches here.

1. I have innate magic that I use as I will.
2. I have innate magic that I've been taught to use.
3. I study the secrets of the universe to wield magics.

I think Sorcerer, Arcanist, and Wizard each satisfy one of the three pretty well. I can think of characters that I built in the past as wizards that I would rebuild as arcanists, but I can also think of characters that would remain firmly in the wizard / sorcerer slot.

I Think degrading wizards from 2 and 3 to just 2 is a big thing.

Cap. Darling wrote:

My problem with the class is that it take away from the wizard in the flavor departement. Until not that long ago, and even more with arcane discoveries, wizards was the folks that undestood magic, the magic engeneers and scientists the guys that pushed the borders of reality. Now they are guys with spells but a new class have take most of the flavor. Every wizard i have ever played and most of the ones i have read about in books fit the arcanist description better. Pehaps the guys that love knigths felt like this when the cavalier came and became the knigth and figther was no longer the choice for this fantasy hero type. I dont Care if it is OP i Will just houserule it a bit but i Think every great wizard in most worlds Will turn out to have been Arcanists. Just like most rogues Will have been slagers and investigators. The rogue type hero needed a save. The wizard fulfilled his role fine and the arcanist is taking form that. But i look forvard to playing one if my GM Will let me.

I personally think this is a good thing, but as stated before that's my dislike of prepared casting talking =)

I dunno, I just really love the archetypical image of the learned spellcaster with the magic book, but hate the mechanics behind the wizard. Arcanist will let me have that flavor without having to deal with the crunch of a class I don't enjoy playing.

I imagine the Wizard will remain with many fans who are more fond of prepared casting and don't care for spont, or want the earlier spell access, the array of bonus feats and discoveries, and the greater spells per day without use of feats and items. As such I don't see the Arcanist stealing the Wizard's flavor so much as sharing it.

You are talking mechanics. I am talking flavor.

on the whole black mage, white mage, blue mage, red mages.
first. I would love to form a group based on this!

Secondly by the sounds of it, this class could possibly do most of these depending.

Black and white mage are obvious (base class/white mage archetyp)

blue mage is hard; but depending on spell choice and usage of the damage exploits you could fluff it. (but really no class does this or comes close really. It's a very weird idea to incorperate in a massive open ended game like this and it's beastery) I'd probably just go with the exploit abilities.... To do it straight up as a class would be a matter of making spells that you learn based on the kind of enemy your hit by I guess.. but you'd need 'em buffer than a wizard.

Red mage: Depends a bit, but the bladed version coems close, IF you can comebine the bladed and white mage? You got yourself a damn redmage! I really hope you can.
otherwise it's pretty leaning towards certain bard archetypes

Red and blue mages are my favorite things ever in FF. Blue in particular. I played a tabletop version i found online while i was in Japan (not a japanese game) I loved the blue mage haha.

as for the critisms vs bile thing.
It's pretty 50 50, not all of it has been constructive critism, but a fair chunk as been happily. but yeah it's a tone thing. Though the tone ahs gotten better as the thread's continued. Gut reactions tend to be the most polarized then dies down. I wonder how things will alter once the book hits. I'm really loooking forward to all the stuff. Though no games around me i know of so it'll all be roll20 or anywhere else i can find.

If "Paragon Surge + Extra Arcana" is the argument for why Sorcerers are not obsolete, then this only shows how OP Arcanists are.

and

Too bad Arcanists can use Sorcerer's Arcana. And anyone can grab Eldritch Heritage

Isn’t Extra Arcana a Magus feat? And what is Sorcerer's Arcana?

My bad, I meant Expanded Arcana and Bloodline Arcana...

Too many Arcana-named feats and features. Mixed them up. :P

It won't be until middle levels, sure, but a Glove of Storing just became the item for an Arcanist to use. Free Action retrieve spell-book *Quick Study* free action store spell-book.

Also, I'm not sure just who I'm wanting to be wrong more, those who are calling the Arcanist OP now, or those who are saying they have no right to call the Arcanist OP until after the book is out.

I personally think Quick Study is probably one of the Arcanists' most powerful exploits and it will be 'standard' on all of the Arcanists builds. But at the same time, I'm really looking forward to the White Mage archetype.

Jason said that the class will still need Cha and others have argued that the play test Arcanist didn't need Cha because the DC based powers like blasts were useless.

Jason said that the Arcanist gets fewer spells than the Sorcerer. However, he's also said that their exploit blasts are no longer useless (to make people take some Cha) so fewer spell slots are needed for things like blasts! You now need fewer spells because your exploit blast will be worth using.

So what is the point in a Sorcerer now? The one advantage they had has been taken away by giving them a good blast.

And if the blast is still not good enough to compensate, you can dump Cha and be like the playtest, overpowered Arcanist. It's a real shame that this class is getting so much power over things like the Warpriest and Swashbuckler, who are both much more interesting from a story point of view, but which haven't been boosted.

Arcanes have always been my favourite and the different schools and bloodlines have made such characters interesting and flavourful - the Abyssal Sorcerer for example, or the Wood School Wizard. I fear we might lose some of that.

Jason said that the class will still need Cha and others have argued that the play test Arcanist didn't need Cha because the DC based powers like blasts were useless.

Jason said that the Arcanist gets fewer spells than the Sorcerer. However, he's also said that their exploit blasts are no longer useless (to make people take some Cha) so fewer spell slots are needed for things like blasts! You now need fewer spells because your exploit blast will be worth using.

So what is the point in a Sorcerer now? The one advantage they had has been taken away by giving them a good blast.

And if the blast is still not good enough to compensate, you can dump Cha and be like the playtest, overpowered Arcanist. It's a real shame that this class is getting so much power over things like the Warpriest and Swashbuckler, who are both much more interesting from a story point of view, but which haven't been boosted.

Arcanes have always been my favourite and the different schools and bloodlines have made such characters interesting and flavourful - the Abyssal Sorcerer for example, or the Wood School Wizard. I fear we might lose some of that.

Well, to be fair, unless the elemental exploits got a massive (and I mean massive) boost, or there are some seriously good exploits that rely on charisma, then charisma is still, basically, a dump stat.

As it stands with the playtest, the best way to play the Arcansit was simply to put Charisma at a 12 or 14, and then focus everything on Int. You don't need any more Charisma than that because the only exploits that ran off Charisma, were trash to begin with.

It was simply better to take all of the passive, or non-charisma abilities and then boost your Int. Also, in the playtest, things that affected the number of spells known a sorcerer had, affected the number of spells an Arcanist could prepare.

So you built the Arcanist much like a you would a Sorcerer: go human for the favored class bonus letting you know more spells. Hell, if you went half-elf you could even get the human favored class bonus, plus abuse the eldritch heritage: arcane + paragon surge. Combine that with quick study, and you've now got one extremely versatile full-caster.

Orthos wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

My problem with the class is that it take away from the wizard in the flavor departement. Until not that long ago, and even more with arcane discoveries, wizards was the folks that undestood magic, the magic engeneers and scientists the guys that pushed the borders of reality. Now they are guys with spells but a new class have take most of the flavor. Every wizard i have ever played and most of the ones i have read about in books fit the arcanist description better. Pehaps the guys that love knigths felt like this when the cavalier came and became the knigth and figther was no longer the choice for this fantasy hero type. I dont Care if it is OP i Will just houserule it a bit but i Think every great wizard in most worlds Will turn out to have been Arcanists. Just like most rogues Will have been slagers and investigators. The rogue type hero needed a save. The wizard fulfilled his role fine and the arcanist is taking form that. But i look forvard to playing one if my GM Will let me.

I personally think this is a good thing, but as stated before that's my dislike of prepared casting talking =)

I dunno, I just really love the archetypical image of the learned spellcaster with the magic book, but hate the mechanics behind the wizard. Arcanist will let me have that flavor without having to deal with the crunch of a class I don't enjoy playing.

I imagine the Wizard will remain with many fans who are more fond of prepared casting and don't care for spont, or want the earlier spell access, the array of bonus feats and discoveries, and the greater spells per day without use of feats and items. As such I don't see the Arcanist stealing the Wizard's flavor so much as sharing it.

You are talking mechanics. I am talking flavor.

It is as if they had made a class pehaps named DOGODIST that was a holy knigth, only allowed to be lawfull good and with powers to figth evil, sounds like a paladin? No no this one really dont like evil!

If mechanically it did something different from a paladin that I liked better, I would not be opposed to them sharing the same flavor space. That was my point all along - the Wizard and the Arcanist share the same flavor niche, but mechanically are different enough that they'll appeal to different players, and thus CAN share that space.

Well, to be fair, unless the elemental exploits got a massive (and I mean massive) boost, or there are some seriously good exploits that rely on charisma, then charisma is still, basically, a dump stat.

As it stands with the playtest, the best way to play the Arcansit was simply to put Charisma at a 12 or 14, and then focus everything on Int. You don't need any more Charisma than that because the only exploits that ran off Charisma, were trash to begin with.

Pretty much this although personally on the basis of thesecond playtest document I see no great reason to put any points in Charisma.

So you built the Arcanist much like a you would a Sorcerer: go human for the favored class bonus letting you know more spells....

At the moment we do not know if the Arcanist can take sorcerer FCB's. If they can then there will be pretty much no mechanical reason to ever pick sorcerer. All that will be left is a class for people who dont like the spellbook mechanic.

While we're on the topic I have to say I'm not a huge fan of the extra spell FCB for spontaneous casters since it's only an option for ~4 (Human, half-elf, gillman, samsaran?) races.

It's a fantastic addition and a big help for those classes, but it really limits the range of races in the spontaneous casters I see in play.

Agreed. I've long since just allowed people to take any FCB they want regardless of race. Kind of a necessity, since I have so many homebrew races in my setting. It was either that, or sit down and think of FCBs for every class for every single one of them.

Peter Stewart wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

Stuff...

Not really sure I agree. I see three real nitches here.

1. I have innate magic that I use as I will.
2. I have innate magic that I've been taught to use.
3. I study the secrets of the universe to wield magics.

I think Sorcerer, Arcanist, and Wizard each satisfy one of the three pretty well. I can think of characters that I built in the past as wizards that I would rebuild as arcanists, but I can also think of characters that would remain firmly in the wizard / sorcerer slot.

I Think degrading wizards from 2 and 3 to just 2 is a big thing.

Really? Because I thought that Wizards were #3. The presence of the Charisma modifier for exploits makes the "innate" part seem more like the arcanist than the wizard.

I really would have liked to see Charisma modifier used for exploit AND spell DCs, but keeping the bonus spells and casting requirement (must have at least 10 + spell level ability score to cast a spell) as Intelligence. It would have made more sense to me thematically that way, learning the magic with book smarts but the strength of the spells come from within, and it probably would have shut up people screaming that the class is overpowered. Then you might have had a bunch of people scream that the class was ruined or something, so who knows. I'd rather just trust the professional developers.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing the final version of the class.

Cap. Darling wrote:

Peter Stewart wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

Stuff...

Not really sure I agree. I see three real nitches here.

1. I have innate magic that I use as I will.
2. I have innate magic that I've been taught to use.
3. I study the secrets of the universe to wield magics.

I think Sorcerer, Arcanist, and Wizard each satisfy one of the three pretty well. I can think of characters that I built in the past as wizards that I would rebuild as arcanists, but I can also think of characters that would remain firmly in the wizard / sorcerer slot.

I Think degrading wizards from 2 and 3 to just 2 is a big thing.

Really? Because I thought that Wizards were #3. The presence of the Charisma modifier for exploits makes the "innate" part seem more like the arcanist than the wizard.

Yes looking at Peters categories again, it looks like that May be so but it dosent change anything just move 2 and 3 around in my argument. And on top of that Arcanists loose the selfmade wondermen theme that seem to be big in the flavor text.

Cap. Darling wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Cap. Darling wrote:

My problem with the class is that it take away from the wizard in the flavor departement. Until not that long ago, and even more with arcane discoveries, wizards was the folks that undestood magic, the magic engeneers and scientists the guys that pushed the borders of reality. Now they are guys with spells but a new class have take most of the flavor. Every wizard i have ever played and most of the ones i have read about in books fit the arcanist description better. Pehaps the guys that love knigths felt like this when the cavalier came and became the knigth and figther was no longer the choice for this fantasy hero type. I dont Care if it is OP i Will just houserule it a bit but i Think every great wizard in most worlds Will turn out to have been Arcanists. Just like most rogues Will have been slagers and investigators. The rogue type hero needed a save. The wizard fulfilled his role fine and the arcanist is taking form that. But i look forvard to playing one if my GM Will let me.

I personally think this is a good thing, but as stated before that's my dislike of prepared casting talking =)

I dunno, I just really love the archetypical image of the learned spellcaster with the magic book, but hate the mechanics behind the wizard. Arcanist will let me have that flavor without having to deal with the crunch of a class I don't enjoy playing.

I imagine the Wizard will remain with many fans who are more fond of prepared casting and don't care for spont, or want the earlier spell access, the array of bonus feats and discoveries, and the greater spells per day without use of feats and items. As such I don't see the Arcanist stealing the Wizard's flavor so much as sharing it.

You are talking mechanics. I am talking flavor.

It is as if they had made a class pehaps named DOGODIST that was a holy knigth, only allowed to be lawfull good and with powers to figth evil, sounds like a paladin? No no this one really dont like

...

I hope it will work out like you say. But i fear that the new "paladin" will devaluate the old.

I hope it will work out like you say. But i fear that the new "paladin" will devaluate the old.

Well, as I said earlier, I can only speak for myself and my group. I don't like wizards, so picking up the arcanist won't bump any class out of my normal pool of things I want to play. My players who do like wizards tend to not like spont casting, so I doubt the arcanist will appeal to them. So if other groups are anything like mine, which I'm certain some at least are, there's little worry about one shoving the other out of the game.

It won't be until middle levels, sure, but a Glove of Storing just became the item for an Arcanist to use. Free Action retrieve spell-book *Quick Study* free action store spell-book.

Still requires you not to be holding anything you can't just drop: Quick Study requires being able to reference the book, not just touching it, so you need both hands to turn pages.

And even ignoring or dealing with that, it's a full round action. I think lots of foes would be perfectly happy to have the arcane caster hold still and not cast anything for a turn.

For all those people who screamed "Cheese!" for hours on end at Paragon Surge + Expanded Arcana, well, that option is now part of arcanist core. Yay.

I pride myself on not banning anything from my games, but if there was ever something I did ban, the arcanist would be it. It now completely takes a dump on the two best classes in the game, and that's a bad sign.

Tels wrote:

It won't be until middle levels, sure, but a Glove of Storing just became the item for an Arcanist to use. Free Action retrieve spell-book *Quick Study* free action store spell-book.

Still requires you not to be holding anything you can't just drop: Quick Study requires being able to reference the book, not just touching it, so you need both hands to turn pages.

Wait... You only have to be able to reference the book right?

*lightbulb*

Would Mage Hand work for holding up the book, so that you would then only need one hand to turn the page? Could Unseen Servant hold the book and turn the pages for you. Is there a way for Arcanists to get a familiar, like an Imp who could turn invisible to keep the book safe, to hold the book for them?

A whole new world of possibilities just opened up in my mind.

For all those people who screamed "Cheese!" for hours on end at Paragon Surge + Expanded Arcana, well, that option is now part of arcanist core. Yay.

Um, no? Paragon Surge + Expanded Arcana lets you learn ANY sorcerer spell, or even two if you want lower level spells. An arcanist with Quick Study still has to know the spell to switch it out with one she has prapared. So unless her spell book has every single wizard spell in the game, it's not the same.

Would Mage Hand work for holding up the book, so that you would then only need one hand to turn the page? Could Unseen Servant hold the book and turn the pages for you.

Yes, but it's still a full round action.

Is there a way for Arcanists to get a familiar, like an Imp who could turn invisible to keep the book safe, to hold the book for them?

Maybe there's an exploit for a familiar? Does Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) get a familiar?

I believe you can do Eldritch Heritage (Arcane). You can't do Bloodline development (Arcane), if I recall.

I really would have liked to see Charisma modifier used for exploit AND spell DCs, but keeping the bonus spells and casting requirement (must have at least 10 + spell level ability score to cast a spell) as Intelligence. It would have made more sense to me thematically that way, learning the magic with book smarts but the strength of the spells come from within, and it probably would have shut up people screaming that the class is overpowered. Then you might have had a bunch of people scream that the class was ruined or something, so who knows. I'd rather just trust the professional developers.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing the final version of the class.

You know, I'm not one to complain about MAD, I think it's a useful balance tool, can be used to enhance flavor, and pays some respect to the ability scores as game world entities. However, in 3e, several classes experimented with splitting the casting stat, and it just didn't work very well. Characters usually had to commit heavily to +x/+y items even at mid-levels, or just ignore spells/day and get by with less, and it really constrained how much you could customize your approach.

RJGrady, I'm guessing here, but my assumption that things will be set up such that an Arcanist wants as much Int as possible, but wants a Chr score between 12 and 16, depending on how much they want to use exploits vs. spells. (Kind of like clerics wanting Chr, if not slightly more.)

That keeps it from being an outright tax (since a 10 or 12 Chr arcanist could stick to exploits where DCs don't matter and would have a smaller arcane reservoir), but means that someone seeking to squeeze every last drop out of an arcanist is going to have slightly lower spell DCs than a wizard or sorcerer that can focus all on one stat.

Squirrel_Dude wrote:

Would Mage Hand work for holding up the book, so that you would then only need one hand to turn the page? Could Unseen Servant hold the book and turn the pages for you.

Yes, but it's still a full round action.

In my personal experience playing a wizard, and gming for one, I'd would have love to have been able to spend a full round action to get a useful spell next round, instead of spending the rest of the battle doing nothing/firing a crossbow. Hell, the wizard I gmed for had a macro(we play online with maptools) that just stated he was "drinking tea" instead of doing anything useful, and this was in Kingmaker so running out of spells was never the problem.

If the pool is keyed of cha instead of int. Like the martials all have ther pool from somthing other than Str. Pehaps they Can make the Arcanist sligthly Mad. I rend to want good Cha any Way since i like charismatic heroes.