|
So, Paizo announced that they're gonna Open Playtest the Cavalier and Summoner and Witch, etc., etc.
Cool!
I'm looking forward to the new book in August.
BUT WHAT ABOUT Warlock, Scout, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Duskblade, Hexblade, etc., etc.?!!
And the PrCs?!: Mage of the 7-Fold Veil, Acolyte of the Skin, Dervish, Bear Warrior, Pious Templar, Radiant Servant of Saranrae, Animal Lord, Tempest, Drunken Master, etc., etc.
Will we ever see some of these in a Pathfinder book?
|
First of all, most of those are WotC property and making a straight conversion would result in a nice cease and desist letter. If not worse.
Warlock, Swashbuckler, Shaman, Artificier, Warlord - these classes are included in Tome of Secrets from Adamant Ent.
There is a scout-ish spellless Ranger in the latest KQ.
|
So, Paizo announced that they're gonna Open Playtest the Cavalier and Summoner and Witch, etc., etc.
Cool!
I'm looking forward to the new book in August.
BUT WHAT ABOUT Warlock, Scout, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Duskblade, Hexblade, etc., etc.?!!
And the PrCs?!: Mage of the 7-Fold Veil, Acolyte of the Skin, Dervish, Bear Warrior, Pious Templar, Radiant Servant of Saranrae, Animal Lord, Tempest, Drunken Master, etc., etc.
Will we ever see some of these in a Pathfinder book?
They all exist in their respective books and can easily be converted to PRPG per the conversion guide. Talk to your DM about including them. PRPG is made to be compatible with 3.5 so that all the myriad of classes from 3.5 is still available. Pathfinder and Paizo doesn't need to redo the whole lot. Instead they are adding their own personal classes.
|
|
Most of those are WotC property.
Yeah, I know we'd have to change the names and stats a bit -- a bit more for others -- but the word "scout" and what's associated with it is pretty obvious. In other words, the concepts are universal. (I added Radiant Servant of Saranrae specifically because we have to do more than a little job changing the name and stuff.)
But then, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so, who knows.
They all exist in their respective books and can easily be converted to PRPG per the conversion guide.
What is this Conversion Guide of which you speak?
Pathfinder and Paizo doesn't need to redo the whole lot. Instead they are adding their own personal classes.
I know, I know. And I agree -- we the customers would likely scream and hollar anyway because of how much we've spent on them. Nonetheless, it would be nice to take a handful of Classes and PrCs that seem to be the most popular for an official redo.
You'll find the conversion guide here...
As for getting any of these officially, Paizo has stated farily certainly that such is not going to happen--they want to plow new ground and also respect the IP of WotC. Just changing the name and stats a bit can put Paizo in questionable legal ground, which is not something they'd want to do I believe.
Now, there are various fan threads on these forums for converting things like the hexblade and warlock. That's as close as you're going to get to anything "official" from Paizo.
|
|
Scouts, Warlocks, Binders, Witches and Swashbucklers are all open names, and as long as you don't copy WotC closed content, it's fine.
But a "Radiant Servant of Serenrae" is too close for comfort, for me at least (and yes, ahum, I am shark...sorry, lawyer). Many 3PP have gotten away with close calls to WotC property (Pact Magic books, for example).
But given their increasingly high profile, Paizo might be subject to much more attention from WotC legal department than any other d20 company.
And most importantly: Paizo made it clear that even if they could, they will never try to sidestep, circumvent or copy WotC material. So, no "Shining Devotees of Iomedae" or "Tentacled Brain Suckers". Paizo seems to be much more focused on coming up with their own original cool stuff.
Meanwhile, the conversion guide will handle any necessary work.
So, Paizo announced that they're gonna Open Playtest the Cavalier and Summoner and Witch, etc., etc.
Cool!
I'm looking forward to the new book in August.
BUT WHAT ABOUT Warlock, Scout, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Duskblade, Hexblade, etc., etc.?!!
And the PrCs?!: Mage of the 7-Fold Veil, Acolyte of the Skin, Dervish, Bear Warrior, Pious Templar, Radiant Servant of Saranrae, Animal Lord, Tempest, Drunken Master, etc., etc.
Will we ever see some of these in a Pathfinder book?
Our upcoming release (November 27th) - Paths of Power - will have our version of the Samurai (very different than the one WotC released), along with our Witch, Gladiator, Anti-paladin, Voyageur and Elemental Wizard option. Plus, it will include three NPC classes and 3 prestige classes, too.
Robert
4 Winds Fantasy Gaming
My take on the classes/PrCs mentioned:
As for the flavour: This stuff can very easily be accomplished with the sorcerer and his many bloodlines. Just say that you get infernal powers because you signed a pact with a devil. Works with other bloodlines as well
Generally, I doubt you'll see core classes for concepts that can already be accomplished with what we have, or classes that don't really fit a niche - and by that I don't just mean "has a new game mechanic that's different from the rest". So no moving scouts or ever-casting warlocks.
Generally, I think that PrC's should be used more sparingly. Unless it has a solid concept behind it, something new end exciting, don't bother. And if you have a great concept, look if you can't just do it as a couple of feats, and remember that your class and your title need not be the same - example: I play a paladin/duelist of Serenrae, but he doesn't call himself that. He calls himself a dervish. High level arcanists will just call themselves archmages, and so on.
As closing thought, always remember that most of what wizards did was not open content (unlike Paizo's game mechanics, which are almost completely open content), so it's always a problem publishing stuff like that. But also remember that they cannot keep you from making your own conversations, or just use the old class as is.
My take on the classes/PrCs mentioned:
Warlock: I guess you mean a "at will" caster guy. I don't think there will be something like that for Pathfinder, not in its current incarnation.
and yet all wizards have essentially at will spells as cantrips
and yet all wizards have essentially at will spells as cantripsMy take on the classes/PrCs mentioned:
Warlock: I guess you mean a "at will" caster guy. I don't think there will be something like that for Pathfinder, not in its current incarnation.
No where near the same. Not even close.
So, Paizo announced that they're gonna Open Playtest the Cavalier and Summoner and Witch, etc., etc.
Cool!
I'm looking forward to the new book in August.
BUT WHAT ABOUT Warlock, Scout, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Duskblade, Hexblade, etc., etc.?!!
And the PrCs?!: Mage of the 7-Fold Veil, Acolyte of the Skin, Dervish, Bear Warrior, Pious Templar, Radiant Servant of Saranrae, Animal Lord, Tempest, Drunken Master, etc., etc.
Will we ever see some of these in a Pathfinder book?
Gods I hope not.
I've said it again. The overabundance of PrC and extra base classes are part of what drove me away from 3.5 originally.
Do we really need all these "flavored" PrC that can be pretty much built with a good combination of spells feats and skills. Or simple double classing.
Anyway, I like the new classes I've seen so far. So, who knows. But I'm not looking forward to PrC just to fill in the gaps from the WotC splatbook deluge.
No where near the same. Not even close.and yet all wizards have essentially at will spells as cantripsMy take on the classes/PrCs mentioned:
Warlock: I guess you mean a "at will" caster guy. I don't think there will be something like that for Pathfinder, not in its current incarnation.
Its the same only in that its at will casting which for some reason was said to have no place in Pathfinder. Not sure why
Do we really need all these "flavored" PrC that can be pretty much built with a good combination of spells feats and skills. Or simple double classing.
I always the best PrCs were the ones that were very distinctive: blood mage, ghost walker, tatoo monk, etc
I also believe that pretty much every church should have at least one PrC
and yet all wizards have essentially at will spells as cantripsMy take on the classes/PrCs mentioned:
Warlock: I guess you mean a "at will" caster guy. I don't think there will be something like that for Pathfinder, not in its current incarnation.
Great! There's our warlock!
We can call it a day.
Its the same only in that its at will casting which for some reason was said to have no place in Pathfinder. Not sure whyNo where near the same. Not even close.and yet all wizards have essentially at will spells as cantripsMy take on the classes/PrCs mentioned:
Warlock: I guess you mean a "at will" caster guy. I don't think there will be something like that for Pathfinder, not in its current incarnation.
Can I have your hair splitter when you're done with it? Somewhere in the year 3000 I guess.
I'd say that
1. Most of the classes you mention can (as already pointed out) be approximated with other classes as long as it's mainly the concept you're going after.
2. Conversion is (as mentioned as well) easy. That's the point of Backwards Compatibility, and one of the things Pathfinder can hardly be liked enough for focusing on.
3. Why, they only did have a few months so far and they're already playtesting more classes, many with newer and more unique concepts (and after all wouldn't that be better?). I'm sure if they go on at anything close to this level of activity, there's no saying how many interesting, lively and both new and old re-done concepts we'll see.
But to the point of it... why would you want all the 3.5 classes here? They could still be used with minor modifications (or 3rd party sourcebooks, already many available) and really... why would we want Paizo to spend their time one making the same old things? I personally trust them to come up with far more awesome things if they work in new areas and with new concepts. So far the things I've seen for the APG playtest proves that finding a path (hint intended) off the old path is not at all a failed idea. In fact it seems to touch some of the things that were never really covered in an interesting way - or at all.
Can't help feeling a bit tired of "where's this and that from the old books" - I keep thinking and wanting to refer to what Monte Cook states in the foreword to the PFRPG Core Book. "Today, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game carries on that
same tradition as the next step in the progression. Now,
that might seem inappropriate, controversial, or even a
little blasphemous, but it’s still true. The Pathfinder RPG
uses the foundations of the game’s long history to offer
something new and fresh. It’s loyal to its roots, even if
those roots are—in a fashion—borrowed.
The game’s designer, Jason Bulmahn, did an amazing
job creating innovative new mechanics for the game, but
he started with the premise that he already had a pretty
good game to build upon. He didn’t wipe the slate clean
and start over. Jason had no desire to alienate the countless
fans who had invested equally countless hours playing the
game for the last 35 years. Rather, he wanted to empower
them with the ability to build on what they’d already
created, played, and read. He didn’t want to take anything
away from them—only to give them even more.
One of the best things about the Pathfinder RPG is that
it really necessitates no “conversion” of your existing books
and magazines. That shelf you have full of great adventures
and sourcebooks (many of them very likely from Paizo)?
You can still use everything on it with the Pathfinder RPG.
In fact, that was what convinced me to come on board the
Pathfinder RPG ship. I didn’t want to see all the great stuff
that had been produced thus far swept under the rug."
This should sum up exactly why Paizo does not really need to do what they are actually building their game on over again.
And clarify that Pathfinder is about giving us at players of the game even more of the great things from 3.5 and something new and exciting.
That said:
KEEP those thieving, ever-casting bothersome warlocks from me! I don't mind their concept. I hate their abilities pr. 3.5. If Paizo does anything in the style, I pray it will not be at will casting. It's both far too limited and foolishly overpowered.
The reason (as I see it) for at will cantrips is not to get the mage in that foolish "after the first combat I don't have any more spells so I need a crossbow/quarterstaff/whatever..." situation 3.5 was full of. There's always a little reserve. But at will effects should never be powerful things like the warlock's eldritch blast. It's so extremely much compared to what every other class has. And hooray, they don't have anything else.
I wouldn't call that something to miss. I'd call it boring. This is of course, just my opion, feel free to hate it. I couldn't care less, unless you have good arguments for it.
Oh and can I get the hair splitter in 4000 then? I know someone who knows how to sharpen those things. Guess it'll be needing it.
Tome of Secrets anyone?
Do we really need all these "flavored" PrC that can be pretty much built with a good combination of spells feats and skills. Or simple double classing.
But you see, while this can be done, many prestige classes that can be duplicated this way were published so that the players who did not feel like putting the work in could play that type of character. I don't want to call everyone lazy who went this route, though, because real world constraints on time can really limit how much trial and error someone can do when building a character concept.
And as for the OP's question, while this may not be his reason, I am sure many want Paizo to publish more core and prestige classes so that they will be official and available to use in Pathfinder Society play. After all, if it isn't published by Paizo then is isn't legal for PFS.
Can I have your hair splitter when you're done with it? Somewhere in the year 3000 I guess.Its the same only in that its at will casting which for some reason was said to have no place in Pathfinder. Not sure whyNo where near the same. Not even close.and yet all wizards have essentially at will spells as cantripsMy take on the classes/PrCs mentioned:
Warlock: I guess you mean a "at will" caster guy. I don't think there will be something like that for Pathfinder, not in its current incarnation.
I am just questioning your statement "at will casting has no place in Pathfinder" is all. Simply put, why do you say that? Its certainly not fundamentally against Pathfinder
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I think that most archetypes, even really specialized ones, can be covered by the core classes. Some may need alternate class features, especially for a thematic book like Asian adventures, but that's much easier to implement without getting rules bloat.
Remember when the boards were full of speculation on what class(es) Eando Kline was? With just 11 possible classes there were tons of theories bandied about. The same speculation would happen if there were a hex-slinging sword fighter in a future story and we'd use the same 11 classes (maybe 17 by then) to figure out what he or she was. So if it can be reverse engineered, it can be engineered. It just takes creativity.
I am just questioning your statement "at will casting has no place in Pathfinder" is all. Simply put, why do you say that? Its certainly not fundamentally against Pathfinder
You try to win your argument with semantics.
I'm not saying there is no at will magic. I'm saying the game doesn't put that stuff into the hands of characters. And no, cantrips do not count. Neither do orisons.
Do you really think that a game that made the 1st-level school, domain and bloodline magic limited (usually 3+key attribute) - stuff that usually does 1d6 +1/2 level, not very powerful - will do a class that does all its magic at will?
I think not.
I further think the warlock's mechanics didn't fit 3e at all. I think a decision like this ("Is magic limited or not") should be made at a systemic level. If magic is limited, it's limited for all classes. If it's unlimited, it should be thus for everyone.
And I think that the game has always worked well with spell slots, and it should not go away. Not as the standard. Let someone make an alternate system maybe, but the game will no longer be the game it is when we're taking this away.
And I think that the game has always worked well with spell slots, and it should not go away. Not as the standard. Let someone make an alternate system maybe, but the game will no longer be the game it is when we're taking this away.
This is one thing I do not understand about the "i dont want lots of new stuff" crowd. How does the existance of an at will magic user change the game for the wizard or sorceror or any of the existing classes? They still do what they do in the way that they do it. And if you feel its inappropriate, dont use it. Because it does not fit your view or style does not mean it should not exist. Nor does it's existance ruin anything for you or for your group. This is not in fact a video game where things are force upon you. Its why most people write their character sheets in pencil. Dont like whats on there? Theres an eraser on the other side. Mind you I never really liked the 3.5 warlock, mostly because toned down spellcasting and an at will blast dont really appeal to me, but I dont have a problem with someone interested in it being made.
And I think that the game has always worked well with spell slots, and it should not go away. Not as the standard. Let someone make an alternate system maybe, but the game will no longer be the game it is when we're taking this away.
It may work well for you and lots of other players and not feel like D&D without the spell slot requirement, but for myself and lots of others, probably the number one house rule used is that all spellcasters are at-will casters. None of this being restricted to memorizing or praying for specific spells every single day for the rest of the character's life. Other than strictly by-the-book games like tournaments or PFS or LFR, etc, I do not think I have been in a gaming group without this house rule since the early days of 2nd Edition almost 20 years ago. But that is the good thing about casual play, if you want to change the rules or not, the Rules Police are not going to come to your house and take away your books or ban you from gaming because of it.
This is one thing I do not understand about the "i dont want lots of new stuff" crowd. How does the existance of an at will magic user change the game for the wizard or sorceror or any of the existing classes?
I'm not against new stuff. But I want some consistency in the system, some quality. Mixing core assumptions isn't really maintaining consistency and quality.
Mind you, if someone went and made an alternative where magic in general were like that, I wouldn't mind, but before they go and make a class whose only right to exist is "I'm different, mechanically", they should devote their energy and time for stuff we actually need.
Note that there's already a couple of warlocks: One for 3e - you can still use that - and the Tome of Secrets has another.
If you want those, and use those, I'm not losing any sleep with it.
But I wouldn't hold my breath for Paizo to do something like this. It seems to me they don't like the concept. As I said, the 1st-level magic stuff like elemental ray has been changed from at will to 3+ability score per day in the final version, and we're just talking about a relatively weak back-up ability. I really doubt they'll make a "I'm a wizard, but I use different rules than you" class.
It may work well for you and lots of other players and not feel like D&D without the spell slot requirement
I'm quite sure that this may not just be so, it is so. No vancian spellcasting means no D&D.
but for myself and lots of others, probably the number one house rule used is that all spellcasters are at-will casters.
Great! Whatever floats your boat.
And may I remind you that I said that I wouldn't mind something like this?
Because you changed the system. I wouldn't want to play D&D without the tactical considerations of spell selection, because it would feel weird, but I have played other games where you just have "mana" (which always felt uninspired, because everybody is doing it). Go ahead and do that.
What I don't like are classes that are just there to change the rules.
"This class is nothing new under the sun as far as the game world is concerned, but they get to use mana instead of spell slots!", "This class is so boring that you can put roleplayers to death with it, but you ignore the rules for iterative attacks, you get to have a parry roll instead of AC, and lower numbers on the dice are better" and similar stuff is just crap if you ask me.
And note that the warlock is even worse for you than a wizard, because you get to choose even less spells than a sorcerer, and then you're stuck with those forever.
I am just questioning your statement "at will casting has no place in Pathfinder" is all. Simply put, why do you say that? Its certainly not fundamentally against PathfinderYou try to win your argument with semantics.
I'm not saying there is no at will magic. I'm saying the game doesn't put that stuff into the hands of characters. And no, cantrips do not count. Neither do orisons.
Do you really think that a game that made the 1st-level school, domain and bloodline magic limited (usually 3+key attribute) - stuff that usually does 1d6 +1/2 level, not very powerful - will do a class that does all its magic at will?
I think not.
I further think the warlock's mechanics didn't fit 3e at all. I think a decision like this ("Is magic limited or not") should be made at a systemic level. If magic is limited, it's limited for all classes. If it's unlimited, it should be thus for everyone.
And I think that the game has always worked well with spell slots, and it should not go away. Not as the standard. Let someone make an alternate system maybe, but the game will no longer be the game it is when we're taking this away.
I guess I just don't see why the warklock "doesn't fit". Frankly, I liked the concept myself. It was a different type of charcter with a whole new mechanic. Though I liked things like the beguiler or the scout to a degree, they were essentially mulit-classed characters. For a new base class, I liked to see a whole new mechanic. Things like the warlock and the artifcer fit that bill
I liked the new mechanic. I think thats what new base classes should be.
I am just saying that Pathfinder obviously is not fundamentally opposed to at will magic as cantrips are now just that. I don't believe thats semantics at all
I am with KaeYoss here, all day, always one spells just do not fit with the core concepts and assumptions. All day engry blasts are fine for a supers game, not for what I engry in a fantasy game. The assumption in pathfinder is magic of any power is a limited thing. It takes great control to hold many spells in check and at some point you just tire out
The warlock never felt like it fit. It always felt like something houseruled in from another game system
|
|
I guess I just don't see why the warklock "doesn't fit". Frankly, I liked the concept myself. It was a different type of charcter with a whole new mechanic. Though I liked things like the beguiler or the scout to a degree, they were essentially mulit-classed characters. For a new base class, I liked to see a whole new mechanic. Things like the warlock and the artifcer fit that bill
I liked the new mechanic. I think thats what new base classes should be.
I am just saying that Pathfinder obviously is not fundamentally opposed to at will magic as cantrips are now just that. I don't believe thats semantics at all
I don't know about anyone else but I like the distinction between the cantrip and the whole tier of @ will magic.
I agree, in a small form it is present in PF. At the same time the one thing that was weird about the system pre PF was the idea that a caster, a wielder of supernatural powers, could only shine his shoes or float a small stone X number of times per day. I think saying "yeah you can do that all day" is a cool way to thematically give the casters relevance in the "chores and basic functions" portion of the game, a section that my repetitive wizard player would always "sit" through because his strength was so low and he "had to study". No Gandalf, you have to wash dishes like everyone else.
On the other hand I think @ will above that does feel out of place IMO. A sorcerer will cast more than a wizard and then that jerk of a warlock is in a tracksuit, running in place with his fingers on his neck checking his pulse looking at the other casters and saying "He guys, ready to go again?".
I understand that the Warlock was a new component and I can agree that I like the idea of distinctly different flavors mechanically to distinguish between classes, but @ will casting feels like an import from a *different* game and that is all well and good but I think for some of us who are used to the "old way" it feels particularly out of place, IMO.
Edit:
The warlock never felt like it fit. It always felt like something houseruled in from another game system
Yeah like that.
|
Creative Director
|
Us liking or hating the warlock's core concept has nothing to do with anything. We CAN'T really do anything with it, because it's not open content. It's a distinctive ability to build a class around, and one that I actually think is quite interesting and fun. I had a warlock player in the Savage Tide campaign I ran, and the warlock fit in quite well and was pretty interesting.
But the warlock itself is not open content. Unlike the 11 Player's Handbook classes, we CAN'T officially do up a Pathfinder version of the warlock. And it's kinda cheesy and sketchy and dishonest and lame, I think, for Paizo to try to build a fakey warlock replacement. And beyond THAT... I don't want to rebuild a BRAND NEW warlock because then, all of a sudden, that causes an unnecessary conflict in home games where some folks might want to do a Pathfinder warlock and others might want to do a WotC warlock. Just because we can't run with non-open rules in print doesn't mean we should invalidate those choices by replacing them.
For all our new base classes, we'll be doing one of two things:
We'll be coming up with entirely new class concepts with names that aren't already in widespread common use among the 3.5 edition of D&D.
OR
We'll be building new base classes out of real-world concepts that model real world mythos. A "warlock" in the real world is not a demonic dude who shoots eldritch lasers so we can't rebuild a Pathfinder version to replace this... but we COULD build a Pathfinder version of the samurai or the ninja. In that case, while the rules would be different than those that exist in 3.5's expansion books, the themes and types of abilities the class would have, since they're building off of real world legends and not a specific company's intellectual property, CAN be similar.
The assumption in pathfinder is magic of any power is a limited thing.
Huhwhat? Do you realize how many different things in the bestiary have at-will spell-like abilities? And not just outsiders, either. Your argument is totally inconsistent.
This is a "Can't please everybody" argument. Some of the people screaming for their fave classes to be redone are the same that complain that the game isn't really backwards compatible. It IS backwards compatible. The thing that makes it backwards compatible is the ability to take all of those features from all of those Complete (Insert Type) Books and, with very little modification, use them as is in your game. Personally, while I liked allot of stuff in the Complete (Insert Type) Books, they were full of JUNK. The good stuff was invalidated by WoTC by hardly ever actually using it in anything but the books. Allot of people like the Scout. I liked the Scout (and I agree that he can be modeled using the new rogue quite nicely). But tell me how many times after the Complete Adventurer did you see the stat blocks of various PC classed NPCs actually use the Scout class. They would be labeled "Hobgoblin scouts," but were statted out as rogues or rangers. So, PLEASE, Paizo give us classes, and PrCs, that will ACTUALLY get used in other products. That will mean less PrC filler, less forced classes (Warmage is a fine example), and fewer lame rules.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
BUT WHAT ABOUT Warlock, Scout, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Duskblade, Hexblade, etc., etc.?!!
And the PrCs?!: Mage of the 7-Fold Veil, Acolyte of the Skin, Dervish, Bear Warrior, Pious Templar, Radiant Servant of Saranrae, Animal Lord, Tempest, Drunken Master, etc., etc.
Will we ever see some of these in a Pathfinder book?
You will never see any of those in a Pathfinder book, but all of them can be played as is in pathfinder games.
All of them are in WotC books and all WotC books (except XPH/UA) have "no open content in this book" on the copyright page.
So no one (including you in a forum post) can legally update them or modify them (at least publicly) for Pathfinder.
Copyright law is pretty broad, if you take a story and modify it (say like a a Radiant Servant class) and it resembled the 3.5 version you would be in violation even if you named it Sun Servant and modified every ability to work different but evoke the same "feelings." Meaning, you couldn't make a similar class.
That is why they say they might make a Samauri but it would be a complete new (historically based) class with no ties to the old class and likely no similar abilities to the old class.
I guess I just don't see why the warklock "doesn't fit". Frankly, I liked the concept myself. It was a different type of charcter with a whole new mechanic. Though I liked things like the beguiler or the scout to a degree, they were essentially mulit-classed characters. For a new base class, I liked to see a whole new mechanic. Things like the warlock and the artifcer fit that bill
The artificer is different. He brought a new character concept into the mix (i.e. "guy who uses home-made contraptions") that were supported by new rules, because they weren't in the core rules yet.
The warlock brings nothing new to the game. He's a spellcaster. So are 7 out of 11 core base classes. He might get his powers from pacts (or from inheriting them from someone who made a pact), but there's already the sorcerer for that stuff.
The only thing that the warlock has is a break from one of the core assumptions of the game: Player characters don't get to go full power magic all day.
If you don't like that assumption, change it. That way, everyone is like this.
Scouts are the same to me. All they really added was "I can move and be an effective attacker". Something like that must be fixed on a more basic level.
I am just saying that Pathfinder obviously is not fundamentally opposed to at will magic as cantrips are now just that. I don't believe thats semantics at all
There are several multiverses between "I get to use prestidigitation or light all day" and "One meteor swarm down, infinite to go".
0-level magic is nice flavour and/or utility, but it doesn't change the power level of the class. The wizard's threat level isn't changed when you go from resistance 1/day to resistance /will.
The assumption in pathfinder is magic of any power is a limited thing.Huhwhat? Do you realize how many different things in the bestiary have at-will spell-like abilities? And not just outsiders, either. Your argument is totally inconsistent.
That works for the same reason CR and ECL are two different numbers: There's a colossal difference between "monster who gets something like 30 seconds as screen time as something the characters fight and slay" and "Player character who is on screen all day, every day."