Paizo will not be making an Archmage or any PrC that basically says "I'm just a better (fill in the base class)." They want to avoid making a PrC that you have to multiclass into in order to become just a more powerful version of what the baseclass already is. Instead, all their PrC's they want to fill specific niche roles.
They tried to make the Bace Class powerful enough at high level so that you are the archmage or the hierophant or whatever when you get to that level anyway n:)
I enjoy that Wizard 20 is the be all, end all of Wizards now instead of a PrC. Base classes should be worth your time, yeah?
Paizo will not be making an Archmage or any PrC that basically says "I'm just a better (fill in the base class)." They want to avoid making a PrC that you have to multiclass into in order to become just a more powerful version of what the baseclass already is. Instead, all their PrC's they want to fill specific niche roles.
What about master chemist and the alchemist? or is was it done because the chemist focuses only on mutagens really?
|
Paizo will not be making an Archmage or any PrC that basically says "I'm just a better (fill in the base class)." They want to avoid making a PrC that you have to multiclass into in order to become just a more powerful version of what the baseclass already is. Instead, all their PrC's they want to fill specific niche roles.What about master chemist and the alchemist? or is was it done because the chemist focuses only on mutagens really?
The Master Chymist is pretty different from an "alchemist, but better"; he is all about the Mutagens and his Mutate ability and his full-fledged alternate personality. Definitely a niche roll. Personally, I love the Master Chymist, especially when you toss in a level or two of Barbarian into the mix. Awesome, awesome fella.
What about master chemist and the alchemist? or is was it done because the chemist focuses only on mutagens really?
I think you hit it on the head. The master chemyst isn't just a class where you trade spelling for extra alchemist power. They specialise on mutagens and mostly neglect other alchemist abilities.
Archmages, on the other hand, just gave you funky powers.
Every arcanist who can get away with it can call himself archmage now. And the spellcaster classes get funky powers all by themselves.
As people have already indicated, we won’t be seeing an Archmage PrC. Paizo indicated that any high level Wizard is an “Archmage” and did not want just a “better Wizard”.
Can’t say I agree with their reasoning and how they handled the Archmage-like abilities in the APG, however, it is their game and what’s done is done.
I think that the archmage was a very good way to make a prestige class, personally. Because it offered class ability options rather than set abilities, you could really customize it to what suited your character.
Just like the feats that replaced it, eh?
Just like the feats that replaced it, eh?
Much prefer the customization through the actual PrC than the feats. Yes, there is a difference.
Some of that customisation though contributed to the imbalance between caster and noncaster types. I'm also of the school that any mage who's past 15th level can call himself an Archmage and I won't be foolish enough to contest that. :)Much prefer the customization through the actual PrC than the feats. Yes, there is a difference.
Just like the feats that replaced it, eh?
Another post in the grand scheme of confusing mechanics and fluff.
Some of that customisation though contributed to the imbalance between caster and noncaster types. I'm also of the school that any mage who's past 15th level can call himself an Archmage and I won't be foolish enough to contest that. :)
You mean you feel the customization with the Archmage made casters too powerful compared to non-casters? The debate still goes on whether if that’s the case where casters are automatically stronger than non-casters. To some? Yes. To all? No. Besides, I feel a lot of non-caster PrCs have just as good customization, as well.
As for the second contention, as I always have said, if the name was a problem for high level casters, Paizo could have always renamed the PrC to something else.
|
Another post in the grand scheme of confusing mechanics and fluff.Some of that customisation though contributed to the imbalance between caster and noncaster types. I'm also of the school that any mage who's past 15th level can call himself an Archmage and I won't be foolish enough to contest that. :)Much prefer the customization through the actual PrC than the feats. Yes, there is a difference.
Just like the feats that replaced it, eh?
Or perhaps recognising that there is a complex interaction between mechanics and fluff?
Or maybe having a different perspective to your own which, while being different, is not in any way confused.Maybe?
Well, I really didn’t see anything wrong with the Archmage myself in regards to execution. But as I said, it is their (Paizo’s) game system, so therefore their call, and their right to make that call.
Just want to add, even though I don’t agree with their decision about the Archmage, it does not lessen my positive opinion of them to any great degree and the decisions they have made and which I agree with, far outweigh the ones I do not agree with.
Well, I really didn’t see anything wrong with the Archmage myself in regards to execution. But as I said, it is their (Paizo’s) game system, so therefore their call, and their right to make that call.
Just want to add, even though I don’t agree with their decision about the Archmage, it does not lessen my positive opinion of them to any great degree and the decisions they have made and which I agree with, far outweigh the ones I do not agree with.
The issue was that it was a no-brainer to go Archmage, which normally means something is too good. I like the Holy Vindicator class as an example because I think it is cool, but it loses some power from a cleric or paladin that goes into it. That was the issue, more than the name was. You had to give up spell slots, but you got a lot of versatility out of those slots.
Jumping on the bandwagon with my anecdotal 2 cents; after Archmage was available, I never saw a single player opt out of it to take levels 16-20 as a wizard. It was too good.
And since it is something that is replicable (mostly) by feats and fluff, this circles around nicely to the "Why do we have this as a PRC again?"
Yep as the others have said archmage was a PRC done wrong. You got everything the normal wizard did but more. There was zero reason not to take it,you hurt your self by not taking that PRC it was a must have.
If a PRC gives cool new powers, then you should lose something as well, and not just a spell slot. It should not be out right better.
Well, I certainly agree it would be better to take the Archmage than take the Wizard for the last levels. However, that wasn’t the fault of the Archmage, but the design of the Wizard. I mean it was better to take almost any caster prestige class over the Wizard. The Sorcerer had the same problem.
It’s great that Paizo did make changes on the core classes to fix this. But I don’t feel eliminating the Archmage was needed as well.
The archmage was one of the better designed prestige classes in the entire 3E game. It allowed the wizard or sorcerer to step outside their usual features and required them to give up something for their new special abilities. It was probably one of the most balanced of all the prestige classes in 3E's entire run.
A Pathfinder conversion of it would be easy anyway.
Well, I certainly agree it would be better to take the Archmage than take the Wizard for the last levels. However, that wasn’t the fault of the Archmage, but the design of the Wizard. I mean it was better to take almost any caster prestige class over the Wizard. The Sorcerer had the same problem.
It’s great that Paizo did make changes on the core classes to fix this. But I don’t feel eliminating the Archmage was needed as well.
The wizard did not need anything to make it better. The design of the wizard was not flawed. The prestige classes should have all taken something away from the wizard. That way they do something more than just making it better. In other words the Archmage should have never been created at least not in the form that it was, and Paizo decided to not make the same error.
It’s great that Paizo did make changes on the core classes to fix this. But I don’t feel eliminating the Archmage was needed as well.
The wizard did not need anything to make it better. The design of the wizard was not flawed. The prestige classes should have all taken something away from the wizard. That way they do something more than just making it better. In other words the Archmage should have never been created at least not in the form that it was, and Paizo decided to not make the same error.
Well, that’s your opinion. Going by that reasoning, you should ‘never’ make a prestige class for a Wizard as they are just fine as is. Should have scrubbed out Loremaster as well, right? Since it only improved on the Wizard?
Well, that’s your opinion. Going by that reasoning, you should ‘never’ make a prestige class for a Wizard as they are just fine as is. Should have scrubbed out Loremaster as well, right? Since it only improved on the Wizard?
I am not saying a PrC should never have been made. I am saying the Archmage as a PrC that gives a lot but does not take enough to justify the class should have been made.
Read this which is just a copy and paste
In other words the Archmage should have never been created at least not in the form that it was, and Paizo decided to not make the same error.
See, I never said PrC's should have been made. I said the Archmage was too good.
Oddly, I've never wanted to go Archmage, to me it was always the "last resort" prc. I was building a loremaster first..
If the archmage had lost a caste level or two then it would have been ok, but giving it everything a wizard had + new stuff is always bad.
You loose nothing but gain even more power from taking a PRC so that its a must have, then the PRC is to good.
|
See, I never said PrC's should have been made. I said the Archmage was too good.
Even in Pathfinder, most of a wizard's increase in power from L15-L20 comes from spells. Yeah, they get a bonus feat at L20...not much of a capstone there. But since Archmages keep the wizard's spell progression, the only price for taking 5 levels of Archmage is the feat and whatever suboptimality you introduce for the feat and skill requirements. Given how many more feats PF characters get, that isn't a very high price for what you get. (In essence, each of the Archmage special abilities costs you between half a feat and a whole one, because you can replace one or two dedicated spell slots by taking Additional Arcana once.)
Oddly, I've never wanted to go Archmage, to me it was always the "last resort" prc. I was building a loremaster first..
I am not saying everyone goes for power, but if they were the Archmage is a good way to get it.
Well, I guess I am just considered a power play by everyone, then. To me, the Archmage made playing my arcane caster a lot more fun. Being able to memorize one or two elemental spell and able to switch it out on the fly alleviated the frustration I would have in having the wrong elemental spell memorized.
Or casting Fireball or ‘x’ radius/cone spell and not able to get the full effect of the enemies, or not even able to cast it at all, as the enemies are intertwined with my party members.
So to me, the Archmage’s abilities makes my arcane caster a lot more fun. But again, I guess I am just viewed as a power player that way.
Well, I guess I am just considered a power play by everyone, then. To me, the Archmage made playing my arcane caster a lot more fun. Being able to memorize one or two elemental spell and able to switch it out on the fly alleviated the frustration I would have in having the wrong elemental spell memorized.
Or casting Fireball or ‘x’ radius/cone spell and not able to get the full effect of the enemies, or not even able to cast it at all, as the enemies are intertwined with my party members.
So to me, the Archmage’s abilities makes my arcane caster a lot more fun. But again, I guess I am just viewed as a power player that way.
I don't think anyone is saying that the abilities themselves were broken. Getting them for a trivial payment however...
I liked shape spell and the elemental admixture abilities, sure, but it didn't need to be wrapped in a shiny glossy package that laughed at you if you took those last 5 levels of wizard.
Well, I guess I am just considered a power play by everyone, then. To me, the Archmage made playing my arcane caster a lot more fun. Being able to memorize one or two elemental spell and able to switch it out on the fly alleviated the frustration I would have in having the wrong elemental spell memorized.
Or casting Fireball or ‘x’ radius/cone spell and not able to get the full effect of the enemies, or not even able to cast it at all, as the enemies are intertwined with my party members.
So to me, the Archmage’s abilities makes my arcane caster a lot more fun. But again, I guess I am just viewed as a power player that way.
I think the issue is that you got used to the class, and it is always easier to not give something than it is to take it away, which is probably what you feel like Paizo did. Paizo won't be offering those abilities as a package deal again, but you can get the same affects from the APG feats. Some 3.5 feats simulate them too if the GM will allow those.
I think the issue is that you got used to the class, and it is always easier to not give something than it is to take it away, which is probably what you feel like Paizo did. Paizo won't be offering those abilities as a package deal again, but you can get the same affects from the APG feats. Some 3.5 feats simulate them too if the GM will allow those.
Yeah, I was excited when I heard about the APG having abilities like the Archmage. I was concerned that they would be Metamagic feats and separated out, but was willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
However, my concerns were founded. You had to take the elemental ability for ‘each’ element and added a +1 caster level on top of it. Nevermind sonic isn’t even available anymore.
The shaping feat (can’t remember the actual name of the feat) is better, but again, +1 caster level.
So for me, it’s just a route I’ve discounted going down.
|
|
Yeah, I was excited when I heard about the APG having abilities like the Archmage. I was concerned that they would be Metamagic feats and separated out, but was willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
However, my concerns were founded. You had to take the elemental ability for ‘each’ element and added a +1 caster level on top of it. Nevermind sonic isn’t even available anymore.
The shaping feat (can’t remember the actual name of the feat) is better, but again, +1 caster level.
So for me, it’s just a route I’ve discounted going down.
That nagged at me, too. I don't like mixing acid up with evocations; it seems like a cheesy way to get a Conjurations specialist who would make evocation a forbidden school but still throw fire/cold/lightning spells.
I was thinking about houseruling it so that if you've got, e.g., Greater Spell Focus (Evocation) then Elemental Spell is at +0, or if you've got greater spell focus in whatever school is appropriate then the shaping feat is at +0. That doesn't help with sonic, though.
I'm also of the school that any mage who's past 15th level can call himself an Archmage
I wouldn't put a level requirement on it at all. Sometimes you can get away with it as a 5th-level character ("I can cast fireball, call me ARCHMAGE JOHN!"), while sometimes you can't even hope to get your application in before epic levels ("Archmage? You? Until you can't break the rules of magic, you're still an apprentice as far as we're concerned. Now make me a cup of tea!").
If you want to mess around with elemental spells with no spell-level modification, play an Elemental bloodline sorcerer. :)
Few things are more fun than casting a Cone of Lightning or a Lightningball.
Yeah, I was excited when I heard about the APG having abilities like the Archmage. I was concerned that they would be Metamagic feats and separated out, but was willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
However, my concerns were founded. You had to take the elemental ability for ‘each’ element and added a +1 caster level on top of it. Nevermind sonic isn’t even available anymore.
The shaping feat (can’t remember the actual name of the feat) is better, but again, +1 caster level.
So for me, it’s just a route I’ve discounted going down.
That nagged at me, too. I don't like mixing acid up with evocations; it seems like a cheesy way to get a Conjurations specialist who would make evocation a forbidden school but still throw fire/cold/lightning spells.
I was thinking about houseruling it so that if you've got, e.g., Greater Spell Focus (Evocation) then Elemental Spell is at +0, or if you've got greater spell focus in whatever school is appropriate then the shaping feat is at +0. That doesn't help with sonic, though.
Thankfully, we still use the 3.5 energy substitution feats at our table, including sonics; there was nothing really broken about those feats, and I hardly believe changing the energy type is worth bumping up the spell slot.
Well, I guess I am just considered a power play by everyone, then. To me, the Archmage made playing my arcane caster a lot more fun. Being able to memorize one or two elemental spell and able to switch it out on the fly alleviated the frustration I would have in having the wrong elemental spell memorized.
Or casting Fireball or ‘x’ radius/cone spell and not able to get the full effect of the enemies, or not even able to cast it at all, as the enemies are intertwined with my party members.
So to me, the Archmage’s abilities makes my arcane caster a lot more fun. But again, I guess I am just viewed as a power player that way.
Let me put it another way:
Can you think of a reason to be a normal wizard instead of going into the archmage class?
If the answer is "no," then either the PrC or the base class is problematic.
|
Well, I guess I am just considered a power play by everyone, then. To me, the Archmage made playing my arcane caster a lot more fun. Being able to memorize one or two elemental spell and able to switch it out on the fly alleviated the frustration I would have in having the wrong elemental spell memorized.
Or casting Fireball or ‘x’ radius/cone spell and not able to get the full effect of the enemies, or not even able to cast it at all, as the enemies are intertwined with my party members.
So to me, the Archmage’s abilities makes my arcane caster a lot more fun. But again, I guess I am just viewed as a power player that way.
Let me put it another way:
Can you think of a reason to be a normal wizard instead of going into the archmage class?
If the answer is "no," then either the PrC or the base class is problematic.
And given that we can all agree that There Are No Problems With Wizards, it means that something went wrong with the Archmage.
|
And given that we can all agree that There Are No Problems With Wizards, it means that something went wrong with the Archmage.Well, I guess I am just considered a power play by everyone, then. To me, the Archmage made playing my arcane caster a lot more fun. Being able to memorize one or two elemental spell and able to switch it out on the fly alleviated the frustration I would have in having the wrong elemental spell memorized.
Or casting Fireball or ‘x’ radius/cone spell and not able to get the full effect of the enemies, or not even able to cast it at all, as the enemies are intertwined with my party members.
So to me, the Archmage’s abilities makes my arcane caster a lot more fun. But again, I guess I am just viewed as a power player that way.
Let me put it another way:
Can you think of a reason to be a normal wizard instead of going into the archmage class?
If the answer is "no," then either the PrC or the base class is problematic.
+1
Kindly note: Mage is the old title for level 16 (8th level spells) and Archmage is the title for old level 18 magic-users (level 9 spells). I hated the way they stole the level titles for a PrC.
Any wizard with level 8 spells should be able to call themselves a mage (wizard = learned one, mage = studious one, archmage = great student!) and level 9 spells an archmage.
Sorcs, now, they can probably steal the titles if they want, but they should have their own ;)
==Aelryinth
And given that we can all agree that There Are No Problems With Wizards, it means that something went wrong with the Archmage.Well, I guess I am just considered a power play by everyone, then. To me, the Archmage made playing my arcane caster a lot more fun. Being able to memorize one or two elemental spell and able to switch it out on the fly alleviated the frustration I would have in having the wrong elemental spell memorized.
Or casting Fireball or ‘x’ radius/cone spell and not able to get the full effect of the enemies, or not even able to cast it at all, as the enemies are intertwined with my party members.
So to me, the Archmage’s abilities makes my arcane caster a lot more fun. But again, I guess I am just viewed as a power player that way.
Let me put it another way:
Can you think of a reason to be a normal wizard instead of going into the archmage class?
If the answer is "no," then either the PrC or the base class is problematic.
Well, no :p
3.5 wizard was a terrible class.
The problem in 3.5 was with BOTH. The wizard was a bad base class, the archmage was a bad PrC.