Also, I hope archetypes are closer to 5e, "build in" the class. The problem: 5E archetypes aren't PF archetypes. They're PF sorcerer bloodline and PF wizard school specialization.
At least some of Paizo's writers seem think they count as enough of prepared casters to take Magaambyan Arcanist (which requires being able to prepare 3rd-level arcane spells), given that Arcane Anthology (and reprinted in the Adventurer's Guide, so it's been given the hardcover lookover too) has an Arcanist archetype that ties thematically and crucially directly mechanically to the prestige class without saying anything about the prepared spellcasting limitation being waived.
Yes, I'd heard if you take damage you lose the spell, no roll... which is the main reason I worried about some form of casting defensively, if obviously looking radically different (while reluctantly admitting that making it so spellcasters *cannot* cast a spell while threatened without being more likely than not to lose the spell does help in some ways).
A revision would be interesting.
Inspiration seems more defining... but that is based partly on that there are several archetypes that replace alchemy. Certainly alchemy is a key aspect of the base investigator - it is a huge part of what it gets from one of its parent classes, after all.
It was nice, but what I think Paizo did better than WotC in that regard, is Paizo will continue to support each class they come up with in all their books they publish after releasing the new class. WotC, however, liked to pretend all classes outside of the PHB didn't exist once the book was released. It's my fear for 5th edition when they do end up releasing a fully playtested Mystic and Artificer class, that any other book they release will act like those never existed. By precedent the Mystic has some advantage; the psionic classes did see some support in 3.5 - not as much as the PHB ones, but new powers and even sometimes feats and prestige classes strewn about various books (look at Magic of Incarnum or Dragon Magic, for instance) and the only not-in-core subsystem to get an (admittedly not exactly well-regarded) Complete supplement,. The Warlock followed behind (and specifically the warlock, not invocation-users) - but then, it became a PHB class from 4e onward.
To be fair, the Fochlucan Lyrist was more-or-less explicitly meant to hearken back to the 1e AD&D bard, which did require training as a thief (and a fighter, but that would be harder to smoothly put in as a PRC requirement without actually directly requiring fighter levels), with the druid thing coming in because the actual bard class was themed around adding in druidic abilities. Hence, a Bard/Rogue/Druid prestige class (in fact, the first college for them was Fochlucan). Actually starting out with the design goal of a bard-druid hybrid prestige class would probably have resulted in something somewhat different (possibly something better).
The counter here is that we do have a FAQ for half-elves that says that they can take elf archetypes, so while the rationale is solid in its absence, there is more evidence than just the Lorekeeper's ability that elves for the purposes of archetypes at least *can* be creatures of the elf subtype. It would be strange if a half-drow, half-human could take elf archetypes but not full drow, no?
It is a good thing to correct errors, although TBH I prefer the PGTF-indicated ages to the Golarion ones. It is not a good thing when your internally consistent 'error' is corrected in such a way as to break the ageing if used as written, which is what happened somewhere along the way to the errata.
Ecclesitheurge (and most other cleric archetypes TBH)... a more "caster" cleric that ends up being less effective at it than a vanilla cleric TBH to be honest that was annoyed me most when I looked up Pathfinder's Cloistered Cleric archetype. I'd been playing with a Cloistered Cleric from Unearthed Arcana (which is open content) in a 3.5 game that ended prematurely, we were going to do a Pathfinder redux, and I checked out the Cloistered Cleric archetype figuring it'd be similar. Yeah, I wasn't going to go from 3 domains (one set) and slightly more spells known to 1 domain, the same spells known as a standard cleric and reduced spellcasting. |
