Larkas's page

I must say that participating in the play test was very informative and somewhat fun. That said, I certainly think it was too short. Seriously, the play test could benefit a lot from being one or two months longer.

I'm happy to see that you addressed most of my first point posted here (I would still put metamagic feat in plural, since a spell could conceivably be prepared with more than one applied, but that's fairly minor). The second point, however, could still be cleared up, so I'll repost it:

2 - It isn't clear if the Arcanist needs to prepare spells every day. The way it stands now, I'd say that the Arcanist only needs to prepare spells when she wants to change her loadout, or to take advantage of new spell slots due to leveling up. That's fine by me, but I'm not sure that's your intent. A simple clarification, saying "The Arcanist must prepare spells every day." or "The Arcanist doesn't need to prepare spells each day. If she doesn't, she can still cast the spells she had prepared beforehand." would be nice.

I think having less spells per day would only make the class a pain in the ass to play and barely impact the balance issue.

I respectfully disagree. Back in 3.5, people played as Battle Sorcerers (-1 spell known and spell per day per spell level, + a few bonuses that made it more martially-oriented), still had fun and could still contribute meaningfully to a party. If the Arcanist could prepare one less spell per level, for example, it would still be a "Sorcerer on steroids" (casting-wise) that traded set options for a flexible way to learn and cast spells. I think it would balance out nicely: the choice between playing an Arcanist or a Sorcerer would be less one sided, but at the same time neither class would be invalidated. Meanwhile, I also don't think the balance with the Wizard would be much affected. Besides, it opens up design space for FCBs and archetypes to increase those spells prepared. Of course, this is all IMHO.

Here is where my mind on things is right now

The Wizard does things by the book. He's got the formulas down, he knows how it all works and he understands all the bits and pieces.

The Sorcerer grabs a handful of magic and throws it. It's all instinct and in born talent. His spells are written in his DNA. The Why or how of them doesn't matter he just Knows them. Ask him how he casts spells and he just shrugs and says "well you just kind of grab that twisty bit and go Zam and then Woosh and stuff explodes"

Then there is the Arcanist. The dilettante. He's got a little bit of natural talent and a lot of book learning,but he's also got that hint of instinct that says "why not just give it a twist here" or thinks "what if we just swap that crystal for a couple of glass eyes and a chicken foot, no trust me this'll work"

He's the scruffy kid in chemistry class who gives you a wink and says "want to see something cool?"

...
..
.

MacGuyver

He's the MacGuyver of Wizards

So... The Arcanist should be a master of magic itself, not of the workings of magic or the source of magic, huh? I like this. Extreme care must be taken to not translate this into raw power, I guess, but nifty little abilities can be thought out without increasing the power level. For example: the Arcanist could have an ability that lets him prepare spells with a swapped energy descriptor, such as a Cold Fireball, or an Acid Lightning Bolt. And then you could have an expendable resource to change the energy on the fly. Hmmm... Again, I like this.

EDIT: Hmmm... This could be extended to metamagic. You could prepare a metamagicked spell like a Wizard, or spend the resource to apply it on the fly! Ideas, ideas.

Hey there folks,

There is some great discussion in this thread. We are working on some big solutions for this class that I am hoping to share with all of you later on today. Keep a look out for it later this afternoon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Awesome! And boooo! I hate being at GMT -2. I never know what you guys mean by "later this afternoon". D:

Larkas wrote:

Adam Teles wrote:

You bring up the idea of a Genius, but our geniuses historically aren't people who have something special other than intelligence...

I respectfully disagree. Leonardo Da Vinci was both a genius and a natural talent. If he were a spellcaster (as I'm pretty sure he'd be if magic was real! =D), he would be perfectly represented by the Arcanist, I think. Well, at least the Arcanist idealized by Nildayre. :)

See, my issue here, I think, is that I see that natural talent as being... a giant intelligence score. Leonardo Da Vinci was really smart and also really smart. With Arcanist, we're trying to attribute this "above and beyond" as some sort of innate magic, but because that doesn't have an analog in real life, we've just got someone who's above and beyond by virtue of a high int. Also, I think you could reasonably have a "genius" in any class. One could be a "Genius" wizard, understanding magic better than any other, but one could also be a "Genius" bard who wrote and performed wonderful unique songs (see: Freddy Mercury, Paul McCartney), or even a "Genius" Fighter who knew a great many different combat styles and managed to combine them in ways noone else had.

It sounds like a more appropriate feel would be sort of what the Bard always is: someone who feels the magic and understands it and yes they have to learn and practice but they control it with a mix of both logical understanding and internal feeling.

Hmmmm, differing perceptions, I guess. For me, a Wizard would be an engineer, while a Sorcerer would be an artist. The Arcanist could be the middle point between them, which in my example could be an architect. Being a successful architect requires a good deal of knowledge (hence, intelligence), but also requires a good deal of "feeling" (which, I think, better relates to charisma). Not discounting your point, by the way, just expressing how I feel about it. :)

You bring up the idea of a Genius, but our geniuses historically aren't people who have something special other than intelligence...

I respectfully disagree. Leonardo Da Vinci was both a genius and a natural talent. If he were a spellcaster (as I'm pretty sure he'd be if magic was real! =D), he would be perfectly represented by the Arcanist, I think. Well, at least the Arcanist idealized by Nildayre. :)

The way I see the arcanist class is borne out of comparison to the Wizard and the Sorcerer.

Consider: The wizard studies magic, through the lens of school specializations. Think of it like a college student. You can study communications, psychology, economics, sociology, history or politics. However, at the core of all of these fields you're really trying to understand how humans work, just in different fields.

A sorcerer on the other hand, intuitively understands magic. She can cast spells simply by feeling them out. Think of her like the person at a party who just gets people. She is the natural salesman, or the magnetic politician. They just "get it." Unlike the college guy who studies people through academic fields, she knows the same things intuitively.

The arcanist represents something in-between. The current interpretation I'm seeing from a lot of people is that the arcanist is a "sorcerer who ended up going to school." I think that's cheating the potential of the class.

I prefer to think of the arcanist as a "genius." Schoepenhauer said, "talent hits the target no one else can hit, genius hits the target no one else can see."

Perhaps the arcanist studies magic in a way neither (or any) class has before. They see the next step in understanding how it interacts with the world. This is why they can cast in a semi-spontaneous way. They understand the spell, but more importantly, they understand the way magic works with the universe. They have more refined control over magic than either the sorcerer or the wizard.

If I could influence the class, I would dump the blood pool concept. Instead, I would add a series of abilities surrounding the motif of magical genius. Allow the arcanist more control over the effects of his or her spells. Let them change things like area, range and duration and element type. They already look to be focused on fluidity, embrace it, and separate them thematically from the sorcerer and wizard.

I'll spend some time tday thinking of more specifics on an...

This and Adam Teles' ideas are very good. As it stands, the Arcanist wants to be a middle point between Sorcerer and Wizard. While it succeeds at the spellcasting mechanic (issues I brought up earlier aside), it is, so far, failing a lot at the rest. The mechanics from both parent classes are somewhat incompatible and, IMHO, could be exclusive. PF went through great lengths to differentiate the Sorcerer from the Wizard, greatly succeeding at this because, while the spell list is exactly the same, the features make the classes play very differently from one another. Those features were made to be discrete, and are going to be a pain to simply merge.

I propose taking a step back, ditching the features' purely mechanical merge (at least for now) and embracing a more "conceptual merge". Nildayre's remarks accomplish exactly that. It is a more holistic analysis of the Arcanist itself, as its own character and not merely as a merge from the parent classes. It is by no means simple, but thinking about how a character might live in its world (vs. thinking how a class might play) might give interesting and impacting hints of what it should be able to accomplish with its class features.

IMHO, the Arcanist doesn't _need_ to be a mechanical middle point between the Sorcerer and the Wizard. It can be a conceptual middle point while at the same time forming a mechanical triangle with the other two vertices classes.

I must say that I quite like mostly everything I've seen in ACG so far. However, the Arcanist just seems... Odd. It's not that it's bad or something, it's just that I feel that it needs a more work. A few points, if I might be so bold.

1) The basic fluff

As it stands, the Arcanist is sold as a character that didn't have enough "blood power" to become a Sorcerer. To make up for it, it mimicked the Wizard's path.

I can picture a few Arcanists' backstories being just like that. It is, however, a pity to imply that this is the "standard" way an Arcanist is to be created. An Arcanist could just as well be a person that discovered its blood power, but decided to take a scholarly approach to tapping it. Likewise, it could be a Wizard's apprentice that discovered there was power in his blood, but was too familiar with its master's ways to tap it wildly like a Sorcerer could.

In my humble opinion, a class's background description should be as evocative as possible. A larger "character design space" can lead to funnier, deeper and more varied stories and backstories. The current Arcanist fluff is too narrow, and too shallow. I think that, by showing that the Arcanist can be "a smart guy who wants to tap his blood's power systematically", "a methodical mind who can't wrap his head around the wildness of a Sorcerer's casting", or "a mage-apprentice that uses his latent powers as a shorthanded way to attain what his professors would want him to get with pure wit" just as well as "a person with just a little bit of power in his blood that has to research just how to tap it" will make more people more interested, and even excited, in trying it.

Again IMHO, I think that having a possible "underdog" backstory can be nice. Making it "default", much less so.

2) The spellcasting

Oh, the spellcasting... I have a feeling that this will be a constant topic when talking about this class... Anyways, I like that you guys wanted to find a middle ground between the Sorcerer and the Wizard here. The Wizard may be too fiddly and the Sorcerer, too limited to a few players. Trying to find a balance between the two is a good thing, and I feel there is space for this in the game. Trying to _balance_ that, however, can be quite hard... And I feel that you guys missed the mark a bit. =/ Let me tackle each topic at a time.

2a) Spells per day

I think that this is somewhat spot on. It's a compromise between the Wizard and the Sorcerer. I don't feel it encroaches on their territory, either: the Wizard can find ways around his lower limit, and the Sorcerer is spammy as always.

However, I can't stress this enough: short of bonus spells due to high attributes, I don't think this limit should _ever_ be increased, be it through archetypes, feats or what have you. The effects on the balance against the Wizard or the Sorcerer could be disastrous.

2b) Spells known and prepared

Ooooh, boy... Giving the Arcanist a potential list of spells known of "all of them" and the Sorcerer's base progression of spells known as spells prepared is curbstomping the "poor" Sorcerer... Putting things in perspective, while the Wizard and the Arcanist prepare their spells once every day, the Sorcerer "prepares" its spells _once_ (having the option to swap a "prepared" spell only once every couple of levels). I understand that, in reality, the Sorcerer will have one more spell per level due to bloodlines, but considering that there isn't a bloodline with only stellar spells, the versatility will outshine that small bonus quite handily. Also, "feats and other effects that modify the number of spells known by a spellcaster affect the number of spells the Arcanist can prepare", so that's not even a hard cap.

I can understand the logic behind the current "spells prepared" progression, but I feel it was a bit shortsighted due to how it interacts with the Sorcerer. IMHO, the Arcanist should be able to prepare one less spell of every level than it can now, through all the levels. I do realize this would bring a few levels down to "0". That can be remedied by putting a "1" where a "0" would show, by leaving the "0" there and making the slot open only to metamagic-enhanced spells, by giving a score of "1" only if the character can cast bonus spells per day of that level, or by a combination of the latter two options.

Mind you, the current spell progression might not hugely impact regular, day-to-day gameplay. It makes an incredible difference when deciding what class to play, though. I won't say the current Arcanist obsoletes the Sorcerer completely. It does make it hard to justify playing as one if you want to focus only on the spells, though.

2c) Spell preparation

Eh, I have mixed feelings about the Arcanist needing a spellbook to prepare its spells.

On the one hand, I think that, studious as they are, their magic still stems from their blood. It would make sense for them to be able to commit all their spells (yes, even if it means all of them) to memory, and just meditate to "bring a few to the surface" (i.e.: prepare). Maybe they could need to study, but not necessarily a _spellbook_. Maybe they merely need to study their (or other's) annotations on how magic interacts with their blood (thought that fluff difference might amount to nothing at all mechanic-wise). Besides, the drawback of needing a spellbook (though I think that using that drawback is a very bad thing to pull on your players' Wizards, I won't dwell on it here) is very muted on an Arcanist. It can go for days on end without preparing a single spell: since an Arcanist's prepared spells are not consumed when cast, it doesn't need to change its loadout every sunrise!

On the other hand, this last reasoning is _precisely_ why I feel that the Arcanist is the perfect class to need a spellbook: losing it will severely limit your options, but won't turn you into a glorified Commoner. You can function perfectly as a toned-down Sorcerer!

Hmmm... Maybe Wizards should be eidetic by default and Arcanists should need spellbooks, while the Sorcerer laughs at their needs... Anyways, I digress. :)

Regarding open slots, I feel that Arcanists can be excessively dangerous if they can leave slots open to fill when the need arises. Maybe it's a good idea to force them to prepare all their spells at once?

2d) Metamagic

There is no way around it, IMHO: Arcanists, as they are now, are over the top regarding metamagic. They have what amounts to choosing the best of both worlds here.

Since their casting is closer to the Sorcerer's, why not give them only the Wizard's method of using metamagic? Being able to apply metamagic beforehand is very (VERY) interesting, I don't think they need the option of adding it on the fly too.

2e) Spellcasting stat

I feel that, to be true to the parent classes, spellcasting should be keyed off of both Int and Cha, and keying the spells' DC off of Cha would be a great way to pull that off. Besides, it just makes sense! Think with me for a moment: the Arcanist must study to tap his blood's powers. As such, it makes sense for him to need a high Int to cast high level spells. However, due to the very nature of his magical powers, the Arcanist should need to impose his presence on the universe, "to coax the magical energy out from its regular path", as it were. Hence, to make his spells stronger, he should need a high Charisma! I don't know about you, but I feel this fits perfectly.

Besides, this would have the arguably beneficial side-effect of making the class need more than just one attribute!

3) The "Blood Focus" ability

As it stands, I think that the Blood Focus ability is... Meh, at most. It doesn't further the objective of merging the parent classes at all, it just gives a minute bonus to one side or the other. Besides, getting fatigued if you use it up means that, effectively, you have one less use of the ability per day, on most days.

I suggest this change: the Arcanist's bloodline spells are (always) cast with a +1 bonus to CL and DC. It's simpler, cleaner and doesn't open way to weird interactions between the ability and bloodline powers. Besides, it's evocative, and IMHO, more interesting fluffwise: you focus your study on your blood, the same way a Wizard focuses on its school of choice. It's a "Spell Focus Plus", if only you could buy Spell Focus (bloodline spells), balanced by the fact that it's somewhat limited. (EDIT: or just do this!)

4) The "Scribe Scroll" bonus feat

This one is very, very bland. Besides, even though a scholar, I picture the Arcanist as a "scholar of his own blood". I don't picture them scribing scrolls by default.

I think it wouldn't hurt to give them access to their bloodlines' arcana here. It also makes sense that their access to it should be delayed when compared to a Sorcerer's: they had to research how to tap it.

___________________________________

Whew, that was long-winded! This is pretty much all I've felt and thought when reading the class and making a few mock-up characters. I hope this post can be of use! I think that the class certainly has potential, both mechanics- and fluffwise, but I also think that it needs its rough edges smoothed. As it stands, it is a bit bland, and does cause a few balance concerns.

Regardless, good work so far guys!