Advanced Class Guide Preview: Arcanist

So, I understand what you are saying and some what agree. But on the other hand all full spell casters are unbalanced. Then you get optimizers and then anything can become unbalanced. Also using optimization as a way of saying something is unbalanced is not that great of an argument. Plus we have not seen the full class, there could be more things changed.

Understand I also believe the Arcanist is powerful and is more versatile then most classes. I played one during WOTR and then recreated him into a wizard and the arcanist was more powerful then the wizard form but not by much. The arcanist was just more versatile.

Go to the rules and advice forums and say that bolded part. Let me grab popcorn first; I want to watch the show. Don't be surprised if you get accused of being a troll and the thread ends up locked. Because, really, about 50% of the balance arguments tend to revolve around optimization and showing just how much more powerful a single class can get. That's why the fighter and rogue are so disparaged on power levels; in unoptimized groups, the fighter tends to work fine and the rogue isn't as bad.

Also, optimization and the outcomes it bred were a minimum of 30% of the errata that WotC published (the infamous Bag of Rats strategy is the most famous example). Paizo also makes quite a few errata decisions based on optimizers (Crane Wing comes to mind).

While we both agree that it should be a bad argument... the fact remains that the optimizers and munchkins exist and Paizo still makes rules alterations based upon their actions. So, sadly, because the company has chosen to legitimize the stance, it ends up being a legitimate argument.

You know optimizers are the ones against the crane wing errata, right?

It's like I'm in some bizarro world.

You know optimizers are the ones against the crane wing errata, right?

It's like I'm in some bizarro world.

I think he was implying that because of posters (I refuse to use the term "optimizer" when discussing people just using a feat as intended) discovering/publicizing the high quality of that feat, Paizo took notice and decided to tone it down.

I personally think that it probably had more to do with stories PFS play than it did forum posts, but whatever. I don't think he was claiming "optimizers" campaigned for that controversial decision.

LoneKnave wrote:

You know optimizers are the ones against the crane wing errata, right?

It's like I'm in some bizarro world.

I think he was implying that because of posters (I refuse to use the term "optimizer" when discussing people just using a feat as intended) discovering/publicizing the high quality of that feat, Paizo took notice and decided to tone it down.

I personally think that it probably had more to do with stories PFS play than it did forum posts, but whatever. I don't think he was claiming "optimizers" campaigned for that controversial decision.

Pretty much, what you said. That is what I intended.

I am probably very heavily misunderstanding, so I guess I'll just bow out and go. Apologies.

Seriously? A 3rd edition druid in ANY animal form, with ANY animal companion is more powerful than the core fighter. I'm sorry, but you don't get to pin that on munchkins. It was just broken design.

You're wildly exaggerating.

A druid wild shaped into a squirrel with his horse animal companion wasn't THAT bad :-)

You shouldn't base any arguments on this nebulous term "optimized" I had a sorcerer called optimized because I was an iffrit with the bloodline that the race has a bonus for and would generally use spells of the highest level available to me. Where do you draw the line? I guarantee we may all agree on what is the far reaches of the term are but no one will agree on the near shores of it. Is a two handed weapon plus high strength and power attack optimized? That is just a single feat and any full BAB class at level one. Crane wing was called optimizing by itself despite needing a series of specific feats and class levels to "abuse" it. Kind of off topic but discussions about munchkins or power gaming bug me. Why wouldn't someone who stays alive with a weapon or spell list learn to use it to the best possible effect.

LoneKnave wrote:

Seriously? A 3rd edition druid in ANY animal form, with ANY animal companion is more powerful than the core fighter. I'm sorry, but you don't get to pin that on munchkins. It was just broken design.

You're wildly exaggerating.

A druid wild shaped into a squirrel with his horse animal companion wasn't THAT bad :-)

With the massive dexterity modifier from being a squirrel his ride check is gonna be through the roof! Use your squirrely druid spells to buff the horse and go mounted combat all the way. ;)

You shouldn't base any arguments on this nebulous term "optimized" I had a sorcerer called optimized because I was an iffrit with the bloodline that the race has a bonus for and would generally use spells of the highest level available to me. Where do you draw the line? I guarantee we may all agree on what is the far reaches of the term are but no one will agree on the near shores of it. Is a two handed weapon plus high strength and power attack optimized? That is just a single feat and any full BAB class at level one. Crane wing was called optimizing by itself despite needing a series of specific feats and class levels to "abuse" it. Kind of off topic but discussions about munchkins or power gaming bug me. Why wouldn't someone who stays alive with a weapon or spell list learn to use it to the best possible effect.

You are right that it's exceeding nebulous. Which is another part of the problem; most of the time when I see it and see something really called optimized, it tends to be highly overpowered and often extremely specialized.

That said, as for your last sentence: Because most people can't even imagine it. In real life, there are a surprising number of people who use firearms for a living, and depend on them to survive, who have not learned how to use them the most effectively even after years of using them. It's incredibly rare for someone to realize it on their own without training; that's why the few who do tend to be considered far superior in skill to their fellows, even if their fellows happen to be professional soldiers who've been through a couple of wars.

That's actually one of the major dividing line between RPGs and real life.

Torbyne wrote:

You shouldn't base any arguments on this nebulous term "optimized" I had a sorcerer called optimized because I was an iffrit with the bloodline that the race has a bonus for and would generally use spells of the highest level available to me. Where do you draw the line? I guarantee we may all agree on what is the far reaches of the term are but no one will agree on the near shores of it. Is a two handed weapon plus high strength and power attack optimized? That is just a single feat and any full BAB class at level one. Crane wing was called optimizing by itself despite needing a series of specific feats and class levels to "abuse" it. Kind of off topic but discussions about munchkins or power gaming bug me. Why wouldn't someone who stays alive with a weapon or spell list learn to use it to the best possible effect.

You are right that it's exceeding nebulous. Which is another part of the problem; most of the time when I see it and see something really called optimized, it tends to be highly overpowered and often extremely specialized.

That said, as for your last sentence: Because most people can't even imagine it. In real life, there are a surprising number of people who use firearms for a living, and depend on them to survive, who have not learned how to use them the most effectively even after years of using them. It's incredibly rare for someone to realize it on their own without training; that's why the few who do tend to be considered far superior in skill to their fellows, even if their fellows happen to be professional soldiers who've been through a couple of wars.

That's actually one of the major dividing line between RPGs and real life.

I see where you are coming from and have even played in games like that where after leveling up you still couldn't use feats or abilities until you found someone to train you... but the default assumption for the game is not the player as a veteran militia member who has fought three wars and made it to level 4 as a warrior, you should be the Ajax of the story with strength beyond mortal ken. Which puts you at a high level of power from the get go. Or at least that is my perspective, I want to play the cool character who is effective, not the bystander watching GM PCs moping the floor with the BBEG.

I see where you are coming from and have even played in games like that where after leveling up you still couldn't use feats or abilities until you found someone to train you... but the default assumption for the game is not the player as a veteran militia member who has fought three wars and made it to level 4 as a warrior, you should be the Ajax of the story with strength beyond mortal ken. Which puts you at a high level of power from the get go. Or at least that is my perspective, I want to play the cool character who is effective, not the bystander watching GM PCs moping the floor with the BBEG.

One thing to remember is that even a lot of mythological heroes had massive, glaring flaws. They were exceeding good... but their weaknesses were so obvious and so easy to counter. Even a lot of gods had them.

... Just like an overly optimized PC? Apollo may have been pretty hot (hehe) with a bow but how did he fair in melee in the dark? :p few "powerbuilds" cover all their bases and those that don't tend to have obvious weakness, if the AP or GM can exploit them though is a different matter and it does force more reaction from the GM to the character.

soo still broken while the brawler will probably still gets improved bull rush 1/day at level 16.

that's class A balancing there Piazo!

soo still broken while the brawler will probably still gets improved bull rush 1/day at level 16.

that's class A balancing there Piazo!

This is an excellent example of the problem in tone I mentioned earlier.

He's... helping?

It seems to me that the class will be full of broken things. Hopefully the options that are not overpowered will not be underpowered either, so you can play a non-cheesy arcanist without being subpar.

Matrix Dragon wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

It can do much of what a sorcerer can do...

Except for you know, when you compare the total number of spell slots per day.

8th level sorcerer: 6/6/5/3
8th level arcanist: 4/4/4/2

....

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Too many people assume a 15 minute adventuring day when complaining about casters.

Agreed. I'll tell you right now that in PFS I often ran dangerously close to running out of spells on my sorcerer. I also has a GM who likes sending 10+ combats at us in a day. I'm not sure that I would want to deal with the reduced spells per day that the arcanist has.

10 combats? Are your characters leveling up every other day or something?

10 combat encounters, assuming an average CR = APL, would mean that your characters would be receiving enough experience to reach the next level every two days.

• Level 1 - Level 2: 2000 XP. 10 CR 1 encounters = 1000 XP
  
• Level 2 - Level 3: 3000 XP. 10 CR 2 encounters = 1500 XP
  
• Level 3 - Level 4: 4000 XP. 10 CR 3 encounters = 2000 XP
  
• Level 4 - Level 5: etc. etc. etc.

So, yes, even though those days would be tough (especially the first week or so), it would probably be worth it as a character. Spend 14 days in a place, come out 7 levels stronger seems like a pretty good deal.

Also, the 15 minute adventuring day is something of an overblown need for casters to be able to cycle. Although casters can eventually enforce it (level 5 or so with rope trick), it's not necessary. Normally the party will simply say, "Man, our cleric/arcanist/druid/sorcerer are out of spells? Unless we really need to do something, we should probably just rest now."

All the caster really needs to stay ready/active with spells, if for the rest of the party to not be complete a&***%+s who don't mind letting the casters not be able to participate for the next hour or two.

Well, two things. The gm I mentioned doesn't use XP, so the number of encounters has no effect upon when we level. Also, every time we go through that many combats (or more) it is because we are running on a time limit. We *could* stop and rest, but npcs would die because of it.

This does a good job of making sure the players actually try to conserve their resources instead of just blowing through them, and keeps a leash on classes like Wizards and Arcanists that are versatile but have limited spells.

He's... helping?

You keep using that I do not think it means what you think it means.

He's... helping?

No.

so in an alternate thread I asked how an Arcanist would work with Words of Power.

My idea is, since you study as a wizard to cast as a sorcerer, you'd study the effect and meta WORDS to fill the "spells known" as if a sorcerer, to spontaneously cast a WORDSPELL with your slots per day.

Thoughts?

Caedwyr wrote:

With some of the discussion in this thread regarding the quick study exploit, don't Arcanists already get Paragon Surge making the whole thing kind of moot?

When a classes limitation is limited spells per day, casting spells to gain access to spells hurts.

Buy/craft a Wand of Channel the Gift. Channel the Gift doesn't benefit from having a better caster level (unlike Paragon Surge), so you fire off a charge of the wand, to cast Paragon Surge, to get the spells you need. May not be an efficient method in combat (takes 2 rounds to get the spell), but outside of combat, you can use it to basically have access to any spell you want.

Hell, once you get high enough, you could simply pop on Paragon Surge pre-combat to pick that silver-bullet spell needed for the next encounter. Then watch as your Sorcerer/Oracle/Arcanist simply goes around demolishing all encounters.

It's always so much fun when you can 1-2 round encounters! /sarcasm

I expect that, since the Arcanist has to prepare his spells like a Wizard, he would do the same thing with wordspells- ie, prepare a number of wordspells each day. He could then choose which wordspell to cast with each casting, but rather than losing the spell (like a Wizard) he would be able to cast the same wordspell again if he wanted, up to his limit of spells per day.

They are only spontaneous casters of the spells they have prepared.

I could see an argument the other way, though. I'd definitely be interested in hearing a more official answer (even if an "unofficial" official one), as I have a character with this exact level and spell background that I've been working into some stories.

9mm wrote:

soo still broken while the brawler will probably still gets improved bull rush 1/day at level 16.

that's class A balancing there Piazo!

This is an excellent example of the problem in tone I mentioned earlier.

I Think giving a concrete example is fine. It May have come out a bit hard but honestly the problem in tone in this thread have mainly been from the other side of this argument.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

9mm wrote:

soo still broken while the brawler will probably still gets improved bull rush 1/day at level 16.

that's class A balancing there Piazo!

This is an excellent example of the problem in tone I mentioned earlier.

I Think giving a concrete example is fine. It May have come out a bit hard but honestly the problem in tone in this thread have mainly been from the other side of this argument.

That's true to some degree. But there haven't been any quite that blatant on the other side since the post linked. If there are, I'll try and point 'em out.

... Just like an overly optimized PC? Apollo may have been pretty hot (hehe) with a bow but how did he fair in melee in the dark? :p few "powerbuilds" cover all their bases and those that don't tend to have obvious weakness, if the AP or GM can exploit them though is a different matter and it does force more reaction from the GM to the character.

Most of the truly overly-optimized PCs I've seen have no problem handling just about any combat situation thrown at them. Apollo wouldn't count as that. He'd count as, to put it as my group would, "an idiotic powerbuild." He basically overspecialized to the point he was no longer entirely optimal.

so in an alternate thread I asked how an Arcanist would work with Words of Power.

My idea is, since you study as a wizard to cast as a sorcerer, you'd study the effect and meta WORDS to fill the "spells known" as if a sorcerer, to spontaneously cast a WORDSPELL with your slots per day.

Thoughts?

Funnily, enough, one of the best versions of Words of Power I've run across is in the meta-magic feat system of Kirthfinder. (See here for the discussion thread. Rules are available upon request).

9mm wrote:

soo still broken while the brawler will probably still gets improved bull rush 1/day at level 16.

that's class A balancing there Piazo!

This is an excellent example of the problem in tone I mentioned earlier.

More like this is just another example in a loooong list of Paizo not listening to feedback since the alpha playtests.

in fact to address your point about tone; given the track record Paizo has had, the assumption to assume to the worst when it comes to casters is WELL JUSTIFIED.

Quick clarification, arcanist would use runestones of power and not pearls of power, right?

Either way, these cheap and slotess items are all an arcanist needs to overcome their primary checks and balances from what we've seen so far? I know I've seen a kensai black blade go nuts dumping WBL into pearls, I expect nothing less when the group gets its hands on this book.

Arcanists could get a larger spell selection per day with Pearls of Power and cast more spells per day with Runestones. At least I think.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

9mm wrote:

soo still broken while the brawler will probably still gets improved bull rush 1/day at level 16.

that's class A balancing there Piazo!

This is an excellent example of the problem in tone I mentioned earlier.

More like this is just another example in a loooong list of Paizo not listening to feedback since the alpha playtests.

in fact to address your point about tone; given the track record Paizo has had, the assumption to assume to the worst when it comes to casters is WELL JUSTIFIED.

[citation needed]

9mm wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

9mm wrote:

soo still broken while the brawler will probably still gets improved bull rush 1/day at level 16.

that's class A balancing there Piazo!

This is an excellent example of the problem in tone I mentioned earlier.

More like this is just another example in a loooong list of Paizo not listening to feedback since the alpha playtests.

in fact to address your point about tone; given the track record Paizo has had, the assumption to assume to the worst when it comes to casters is WELL JUSTIFIED.

[citation needed]

Citation noted.

Further references.

One
Two
Three
Are you serious?
Wow.
How...what...WHY?!
Okay.

Just a light tip of the iceberg.

EDIT: One more.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

9mm wrote:

soo still broken while the brawler will probably still gets improved bull rush 1/day at level 16.

that's class A balancing there Piazo!

This is an excellent example of the problem in tone I mentioned earlier.

More like this is just another example in a loooong list of Paizo not listening to feedback since the alpha playtests.

in fact to address your point about tone; given the track record Paizo has had, the assumption to assume to the worst when it comes to casters is WELL JUSTIFIED.

My issue is not with the statement:

"Paizo has a history of favoring casters, therefore I suspect that the Arcanist will indeed be imbalanced, and problems with the Brawler, in contrast, won't be fixed."

I disagree with that statement to some degree (see my next post), but I don't have a problem with it, and don't think it's an issue with these threads. But see, that's not the statement you made. You were, instead, snide, insulting, contemptuous, and otherwise not f%+&ing helpful.

The people at Paizo are human, if you want your criticisms to be listened to, you should probably present them in a mature and constructive manner. I mean, who are you gonna listen to, the guy who says "Hey, ass-face, your stuff sucks!" or the guy who says "Hey, I like most of your work, but there seems to be this one recurring problem throughout it that really bugs me. Could we maybe get that fixed?"

You're being the first guy (or at least coming off that way). I suggest you try being the second.

And even if you don't think they'll listen to you no matter what, at least you'll be being polite to the people whose forums you're on and whose game you play. Whether you agree with everything they do or not (and I sure don't...see my long screeds on the problems with Rogue and Fighter in various threads for example, or my repeated references to House Rules making Crossbows and Slings useful) you would seem to owe them some basic common courtesy.

Additionally, by being that first guy you're making the thread generally less pleasant for everyone within it...so even if you don't care how the folks at Paizo feel, you could have some consideration for the other people in this thread who don't work for Paizo and might find that kind of general unpleasantness distasteful, y'know?

Manimal wrote:

[citation needed]

Citation noted.

Further references.

One
Two
Three
Are you serious?
Wow.
How...what...WHY?!
Okay.

Just a light tip of the iceberg.

EDIT: One more.

None of those are Class design. And the first four, as well as the last one, are legacy stuff from 3.5 and not entirely Paizo's fault.

So far, Paizo designed Classes (as opposed to the adapted ones, or stuff like individual spells) are almost all very well balanced indeed (Summoner's a possible exception, I grant, but that's still a pretty good ratio). That gives me a fair bit of confidence that most of the Classes will probably be solid. Maybe I'm wrong, but just going by their record, Paizo make good, pretty well balanced, Classes, however well they do on balance otherwise.

Scavion wrote:

Citation noted.

Further references.

One
Two
Three
Are you serious?
Wow.
How...what...WHY?!
Okay.

Just a light tip of the iceberg.

EDIT: One more.

None of those are Class design. And the first four, as well as the last one, are legacy stuff from 3.5 and not entirely Paizo's fault.

So far, Paizo designed Classes (as opposed to the adapted ones, or stuff like individual spells) are almost all very well balanced indeed (Summoner's a possible exception, I grant, but that's still a pretty good ratio). That gives me a fair bit of confidence that most of the Classes will probably be solid. Maybe I'm wrong, but just going by their record, Paizo make good, pretty well balanced, Classes, however well they do on balance otherwise.

They added and nerfed other things but maintained a clear distinction of casters being so much greater than martials.

Then with continuing supplements decided to amp up their power further. Why? There are methods of adding more choices/flavorful abilities without simply making something more powerful when it quite clearly doesn't need to be. If you were to give the same treatment to Martials you'd get something along the lines of

Dazing Strike: You can take a -3 penalty to your attack roll to grant the Dazed condition on a successful attack roll. This feat is usable 1+1 per +5 BAB per day. Requires BAB +7

Or maybe

Tactical Adaptability: Select a combat feat you qualify for. You gain the benefit of that feat for a number of minutes equal to your BAB. You may use Tactical Adaptability a number of times per day equal to 1+1 per +5 BAB. Requires BAB +5.

Keep in mind Dazing Strike is still so much less powerful than Dazing Spell which can hit in an area, multiple times with certain spells, and generally at far greater ranges with more uses per day.

Tactical Adaptability is a pitiful shred of combat versatility compared to what non-martials are capable of.

It's like we had two athletes. One was put on the McDonalds diet. The other was given steroids. And quite occasionally a button that says I win. THEN later on, we went ahead and gave the second guy an exosuit. Why? Who knows.

If spells are way too powerful/versatile, then the casters who have access to them are by default. Few full casters are not a waste of space without spells. It's in fact a testament to how powerful the Druid is since you COULD strip away the spells and still wreck face.

They've changed and nerfed spells, but left the uppermost powerful spells almost completely alone. They gave a few penance features to the martial players clamoring for them.

It's frustrating because they've shown they're capable of making good design decisions. Design that doesn't punish the player who isn't someone that hops on the forum daily and knows the ins and outs of the system. The issue comes when it turns around and exists alongside the good stuff.

Who needs power aside from special cases like the Rogue? What many many folks want is class agency. We want a greater effect on the world around us itself. Getting another +1 is so boring and meaningless. At this point, Dazing Spell, Quick Study, and the continued prevalence of options like Geas, Planar Binding just feel like catering to power gamers. What happened to the RP in RPG?

SIDENOTE: This discussion and Prince's comment wasn't about class design, but balance. Class design plays a huge part into that however.

P.S I'm curious how the Arcane Discovery True Name is a legacy thing, or why legacy is even a valid excuse for poor design?
P.SS I should really be sleeping, so this might not be the most elegant piece of work.

As much as I think this class may be on the OP side when it's released, I'm eagerly looking forward to it.

I have an idea for a 'Harry Potter' system that modifies Pathfinder, and I think the Arcanist could be the class that works best in the system.

They added and nerfed other things but maintained a clear distinction of casters being so much greater than martials.

Y'know what? I don't even disagree with this. Caster/Martial disparity is a thing.

But what it's not is a thing that's been getting notably worse...which was sorta my point. The biggest disparities between Casters and Martials, at the moment, is between Fighter and Rogue and Wizard and Druid. That hasn't ever really changed, and hasn't gotten much larger since the corebook (Blood Money debatably widened the gap, ditto Dazing Spell or Paragon Surge for spontaneous casters, but powerful as those are, they're vastly overshadowed by the differences inherent in the core rules).

And particularly, none of the new Caster classes (again, with the possible exception of Summoner) are more powerful than something like a Wizard or Druid...which would be the relevant question regarding whether Arcanist is 'too powerful'. If it's on par with Wizard, it's certainly one of the most powerful classes in the game, but it doesn't make the Caster/Martial disparity any worse, y'know?

SIDENOTE: This discussion and Prince's comment wasn't about class design, but balance. Class design plays a huge part into that however.

The discussion, is about whether we have (or should have) expectations about the Arcanist being relatively balanced ('relatively' in this case meaning balanced with Wizard and/or Sorcerer). Class design is at the heart of that argument.

And what Prince? This is a guy called 9mm. He has the same avatar as Prince of Knives but does not appear to be the same person.

P.S I'm curious how the Arcane Discovery True Name is a legacy thing, or why legacy is even a valid excuse for poor design?

I was counting Simulacrum, and the three below it (Planar Binding, Planar Ally, and Geas/Quest). Not the True Name thing.

P.SS I should really be sleeping, so this might not be the most elegant piece of work.

I think it came out pretty clear. Except maybe that identity confusion bit above.

Scavion wrote:

Manimal wrote:

[citation needed]

Citation noted.

Further references.

One
Two
Three
Are you serious?
Wow.
How...what...WHY?!
Okay.

Just a light tip of the iceberg.

EDIT: One more.

None of those are Class design. And the first four, as well as the last one, are legacy stuff from 3.5 and not entirely Paizo's fault.

True, but as I pointed out in the warpriest thread you can’t judge a class without looking at it’s options.

A fighter without feats is nothing, just as a wizard without spells is nothing. I would for example argue that one of the main problem with the rogue are the weak rogue talents, but I admit there are also fundamental design flaws built into the class.

My point is that you can’t judge a class without taking context into account.

True, but as I pointed out in the warpriest thread you can’t judge a class without looking at it’s options.

Claiming a wizard is well designed is impossible without taking spells into account. Same thing goes for the fighter (Feats), the rogue (rogue talents), barbarian (rage Powers), etc.

A fighter without feats is nothing, just as a wizard without spells is nothing. I would for example argue that one of the main problem with the rogue are the weak rogue talents, but I admit there are also fundamental design flaws built into the class.

My point is that you can’t judge a class without taking context into account.

Context is indeed important. I agree entirely. However...new classes either use an existing spell list or have their own custom spell list. So far, class features have been roughly on par for classes using the same spell list as existing classes, while the custom lists (with the exception of the Summoner's) are pretty well balanced with existing lists as well.

In other words, thus far, spell casting classes are more-or-less balanced with each other (if not with martial classes), and talking about them making imbalances worse seems premature.

I think the main thing we can all agree is that we all need to see the final release before we can make our individual "final" opinions on these issues. up until now I think the best thing we can say is that each of our opinions is based on a partial understanding of the final release.

One thing I learned is that whether it's reasonable or not, people will always make opinions of things even if they don't fully understand what they are talking about.

The more you know. :)

I think the main thing we can all agree is that we all need to see the final release before we can make our individual "final" opinions on these issues.

If we could all agree on that, these threads would be half as long (or shorter).

But yeah, I think it's premature to start decrying anything.

zergtitan wrote:

I think the main thing we can all agree is that we all need to see the final release before we can make our individual "final" opinions on these issues.

If we could all agree on that, these threads would be half as long (or shorter).

But yeah, I think it's premature to start decrying anything.

Yeah, they would, but the complaint threads would be three times as long and the resulting fighting going on even longer.

Cthulhudrew wrote:

zergtitan wrote:

I think the main thing we can all agree is that we all need to see the final release before we can make our individual "final" opinions on these issues.

If we could all agree on that, these threads would be half as long (or shorter).

But yeah, I think it's premature to start decrying anything.

Yeah, they would, but the complaint threads would be three times as long and the resulting fighting going on even longer.

yeah but that'd be more alright over all. Threads like these are more for discussing what's known and such. Some people want to discuss opinions, and some want to discuss what's been released; but these two things don't really overlapp very well. Like this and others, it ends up being two threads in one, not very useful for either disucssion. But then again I heavily lean towards having seperate entities for everything with no overlap for ease of reference and such. not that there isn't benefits to the hodgepodge. just not my style

I think it would be best suited elsewhere to talk about the power disparity of casters vs martials (and the faster "power-creep" of casters compared to martials).

I'd like to see the developers/designers do a development manifesto and comment on these issues. See where they see the problems and how they are keeping game balance and fantasy fulfillment and power in mind when they release new content. One of the biggest issues of casters vs martials is the immersion factor and the fact that with a caster, anything is possible and with martial you have to stick with what makes sense and stay within the realm of physical possibility.

But again, I think this sort of stuff is best in another thread, not here.

The people at Paizo are human, if you want your criticisms to be listened to, you should probably present them in a mature and constructive manner. I mean, who are you gonna listen to, the guy who says "Hey, ass-face, your stuff sucks!" or the guy who says "Hey, I like most of your work, but there seems to be this one recurring problem throughout it that really bugs me. Could we maybe get that fixed?"

It's been six years, and being nice has never got the point through. Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result. If the Paizo staff can't take the lumps they rightfully give themselves they shouldn't be in this business. Treating them like precious little snowflakes is, at this point, both insulting and a waste of time.

The fact they thought improved bull rush 1/day was a 16th level ablity is also highly insulting to anyone who wants to play a Brawler.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The people at Paizo are human, if you want your criticisms to be listened to, you should probably present them in a mature and constructive manner. I mean, who are you gonna listen to, the guy who says "Hey, ass-face, your stuff sucks!" or the guy who says "Hey, I like most of your work, but there seems to be this one recurring problem throughout it that really bugs me. Could we maybe get that fixed?"

It's been six years, and being nice has never got the point through. Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result. If the Paizo staff can't take the lumps they rightfully give themselves they shouldn't be in this business. Treating them like precious little snowflakes is, at this point, both insulting and a waste of time.

The fact they thought improved bull rush 1/day was a 16th level ablity is also highly insulting to anyone who wants to play a Brawler.

While I can't say anythinga bout the brawler (I'm not good enough at full martial classes since I avoid them; since they aren't the kind of thing I like)

Also some points have been addressed by faq and such. So insanity doesn't apply except to those who just rage (not saying anyone here in particular. but in other threads i've seen the same person post about rogues in 4 posts, when the thread didn't actually relate to them except for one person suggeseting a rogue talent for the build)
Paizo only has much they can go through, and only so much follows what they want to build; even if it doesn't fit in with some thoughts others have. The best any player or customer can do is make suggestions; and if it can't be neutral suggestions then polite tends to work nicer.

Though I think there could be a forum web/thread thingy that is only used for poetnatial FAQ's that should only have one post that explains clearly the posters thoughts on the topic, the situation it came up, etc. Clear issue without the idea or point being massively lost in many other posters. If they want other forum-goers opinions and such then they can post in the other places like rules advice etc.

That'whole block is purely on the back and forth aspect. which is by far off topic of the actual post.

I find them all pretty darn awesome. I also don't mind that they are better versions of some base classes, the game has evolved a ton since most of the main classes have come out; sure archetypes go a long way for helping 'update' them but there is really no issue with releasing new clases more intune with how they feel the game is shaping up. I know the stronger classes are perfect for several high end difficulty games I'm in. and some awesome fluff for random ideas that was harder to pull off with prior stuff. Going to be great for some home games; no clue on PFS. Arcanist's magic style is pretty much exactly the kind of magic I'm more used to from other stuff so I"m pretty happy about it.

It's been six years, and being nice has never got the point through. Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result.

You've posted 35 times total in the last, what, 5 years? On a forum with many thousands of posts. I'm not sure that's enough times to consider any tactic attempted. Nor, as zwordsman notes, have you been posting in isolation. Even if you were the soul of politeness a few years ago, not everyone was, and that made wading through the vitriol just as hard.

If the Paizo staff can't take the lumps they rightfully give themselves they shouldn't be in this business.

Of course they can. And, this being the real world, have to. But just because other people are going to be dicks to some group doesn't mean you should too. The fact that other people are also doing something bad doesn't mean you should inherently join them.

Treating them like precious little snowflakes is, at this point, both insulting and a waste of time.

Yeah...I don't consider common courtesy to be treating people like 'special little snowflakes'.

And frankly, if you think a basic level of politeness is special treatment, I'm not sure I want to associate with you. At all. Ever.

The fact they thought improved bull rush 1/day was a 16th level ablity is also highly insulting to anyone who wants to play a Brawler.

Generally speaking, mechanics in roleplaying games you disagree with are not personal insults. If you think they are, maybe you need to take a minute and chill the hell out.

Additionally, by being that first guy you're making the thread generally less pleasant for everyone within it...so even if you don't care how the folks at Paizo feel, you could have some consideration for the other people in this thread who don't work for Paizo and might find that kind of general unpleasantness distasteful, y'know?

So...even if you don't care about being unpleasant to Paizo, maybe you should think about all the other people in the thread trying to have a calm and reasoned conversation.

I'm curious as to whether many people posting here have actually played an Arcanist using the playtest rules for any significant period of time, or whether most of these arguments are purely hypothetical.

Most of the people who have been reporting their actual experience with the class say it's comparable in power to the wizard: better in some cases, worse in others--which also happens to be exactly what Jason said the design team were aiming for.

9mm wrote:

Treating them like precious little snowflakes is, at this point, both insulting and a waste of time.

Yeah...I don't consider common courtesy to be treating people like 'special little snowflakes'.

^ this.

It's been six years, and being nice has never got the point through. Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result. If the Paizo staff can't take the lumps they rightfully give themselves they shouldn't be in this business. Treating them like precious little snowflakes is, at this point, both insulting and a waste of time.

If things are so bad, why are you still playing Pathfinder? There are plenty of other systems out there, or else there's houseruling your own version of the game.

Berating people and hoping that they will kowtow to you and make the changes you want to see isn't going to help anything, especially when you aren't contributing meaningful criticism and dialogue, but just browbeating them. Lordy.