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.
Are you implying the wizard might be overpowered?
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.
Was going to let this go, as I've said my peace on it, but as you've addressed me directly, I will answer your question.
Sure, maybe because I don't want to lose valuable spell slots, maybe I would much prefer to use the required feats that are needed for the Archmage on different feats or just maybe, I have no desire to go down the route of the Archmage.
To go by your reasoning, you should eliminate the Loremaster while you are at. There is no drawback to pick the Loremaster over the Wizard. The requirements are much less stringent (than the Archmage) and the feats needed are most likely going to be taken, anyways.
You get 4 skill points instead of 2 and you get all these nice abilities on top of it.
What I find funny is how the line of arguing has changed to how the Archmage is overpowered. Where in the first place, that wasn't even the reason why Pazio did not bring it back, at least from what they had said.
It was due to 'every high level Wizard' is called an Archmage (which I still say change the name if that's an issue) and from the words of James Jacobs:
The primary purpose of the archmage and the hierophant prestige classes were to give high level spellcasters something to do at higher levels. In 3.5, spellcasting classes like wizards and clerics really had nothing to do at high level BUT cast spells. In Pathfinder, though, spellcasters get new abilities all the way up to 20th level—basically, we built the concept of an archmage or a hierophant into each of the various spellcaster classes, and thus there's not really a NEED for more variety at that level.
So there you have it, the change had nothing to do with how 'broken' the Archmage is. And that explanation also explains why the Loremaster should be eliminated as well. I mean since casters have things to do at high levels now, we shouldn't need the Secrets and Lores from the Loremaster, right?
Look, a lot of you don't like the Archmage because you feel it is too powerful, and that's fine. You certainly have a right to that opinion. But please don't say that an Archmage is the 'only' wise choice for a high level Wizard/Sorcerer. Because that's just not true.
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.
Was going to let this go, as I've said my peace on it, but as you've addressed me directly, I will answer your question.
Sure, maybe because I don't want to lose valuable spell slots, maybe I would much prefer to use the required feats that are needed for the Archmage on different feats or just maybe, I have no desire to go down the route of the Archmage.
To go by your reasoning, you should eliminate the Loremaster while you are at. There is no drawback to pick the Loremaster over the Wizard. The requirements are much less stringent (than the Archmage) and the feats needed are most likely going to be taken, anyways.
You get 4 skill points instead of 2 and you get all these nice abilities on top of it.
What I find funny is how the line of arguing has changed to how the Archmage is overpowered. Where in the first place, that wasn't even the reason why Pazio did not bring it back, at least from what they had said.
It was due to 'every high level Wizard' is called an Archmage (which I still say change the name if that's an issue) and from the words of James Jacobs:
The primary purpose of the archmage and the hierophant prestige classes were to give high level spellcasters something to do at higher levels. In 3.5, spellcasting classes like wizards and clerics really had nothing to do at high level BUT cast spells. In Pathfinder, though, spellcasters get new abilities all the way up to 20th level—basically, we built the concept of an archmage or a hierophant into each of the various spellcaster classes, and thus there's not really a NEED for more variety at that level.So there you have it, the change had nothing to do with how 'broken' the Archmage is. And that explanation also explains why the Loremaster should be eliminated as well....
1. The Loremaster does more than cast spells.
2. Nobody said it was the only choice. The point was that from a mechanical point of view there was no reason to not take it.3. I don't dislike the class, but I understand why it was done away with.
2. Nobody said it was the only choice. The point was that from a mechanical point of view there was no reason to not take it.
And I gave reasons not to take mechanically. Some do not want to sacrifice valuable spell slots. Some do not want to take those required feats for the Archmage, would rather put those feat slots against other ones.
We are just going to have to disagree that the Archmage 'was too obvious' to take mechanically.
I tire of this argument, as neither side is going to agree.
2. Nobody said it was the only choice. The point was that from a mechanical point of view there was no reason to not take it.And I gave reasons not to take mechanically. Some do not want to sacrifice valuable spell slots. Some do not want to take those required feats for the Archmage, would rather put those feat slots against other ones.
We are just going to have to disagree that the Archmage 'was too obvious' to take mechanically.
I tire of this argument, as neither side is going to agree.
A lot of PrC's have/had "tax" feats or other reasons to not take them. Nobody said the archmage had no drawbacks. They just don't equal the benefits.
I'll give you Skill Focus: Spellcraft, but come on. Spell Focus isn't a feat tax. It's not a tax if you wanted it and were going to take it in the first place.
Oh no, the wizard gives up one feat that he didn't really need in the first place.
I'll give you Skill Focus: Spellcraft, but come on. Spell Focus isn't a feat tax. It's not a tax if you wanted it and were going to take it in the first place.
Oh no, the wizard gives up one feat that he didn't really need in the first place.
I was saying that other classes had equal drawbacks or a feat tax that might make you reconsider, but the minuses of the archmage are nothing compared to the benefits. If knew the game as well as I should have I probably would have tried it, but I had to learn the game the hard way(die and try again).
I'll give you Skill Focus: Spellcraft, but come on. Spell Focus isn't a feat tax. It's not a tax if you wanted it and were going to take it in the first place.
Oh no, the wizard gives up one feat that he didn't really need in the first place.
I was saying that other classes had equal drawbacks or a feat tax that might make you reconsider, but the minuses of the archmage are nothing compared to the benefits. If knew the game as well as I should have I probably would have tried it, but I had to learn the game the hard way(die and try again).
Oh, my message wasn't aimed at you. I agree with what you said ;p
As an aside, if d20srd is correct, an archmage is not required to sacrifice spell slots.
I admit that this is rather pointless, but it admits the possibility of having that option, but only if the character requires it in the future.
Not sure when those slot sacrifices need to be chosen (assume on level up) but to have the option is nice...
The Archmage sacrifices slots if he wants the abilities. If you're not going to select an ability, you're better off staying straight wizard...at least you get the bonus feat!
Some of those abilities are very unbalanced, too...sac a level 5 slot to get 2/uses a day of any spell? Hello, 2/day Teleport w/o Error, or MInd Blank...
But at least it wasn't the 3E archmage, with the stacking spell power. +6 to caster level and save DC's was a bit much!
And yes, I agree that the ARchmage was pretty much essential if you wanted anything resembling an effective blaster mage. But the game makes it hard for blaster mages, anyways.
==Aelryinth
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.
I hated how they stole perfectly fine titles for "level names". I hated level names, come to think of it.
As I said, you can call yourself archmage whenever you like. If you can get away with it depends on the circumstances - sometimes you get away with it at, say, level 5 (when the real fun like haste and fireball starts), and sometimes you will have to go into epic levels (and learn how to ignore the structures you thought magic was built upon) before you can use that title without causing comment.
Any wizard with level 8 spells should be able to call themselves a mage
Any wizard at all should be able to call himself a mage.
Any wizard at all should be able to call himself a mage.
Any wizard with level 8 spells should be able to call themselves a mage
But he can never call himself "magus." :P
But he can never call himself "magus." :PAny wizard at all should be able to call himself a mage.
Any wizard with level 8 spells should be able to call themselves a mage
i think a wizard fits quite a few of the listed definitions for the word.
Does anyone know if its planned to be remade? Or what?
Just as everyone here says, althought the Hierophant and Archmage prestige classes work fine as is in Pathfinder. I actually keep them in game alongside the APG feats for the sole purpose of two things:
1) Not ALL the Archmage abilities made it as feats (and no Hieorophant abilities did, either) so you should still use it
2) The PrC is an option to get what the feats get you, but for free, instead of using a feat slot for it
But he can never call himself "magus." :PAny wizard at all should be able to call himself a mage.
Any wizard with level 8 spells should be able to call themselves a magei think a wizard fits quite a few of the listed definitions for the word.
Yes. But it's a class now, and it's meaning is that it's a fighter/wizard base multiclass character who dual wields a longsword and a touch spell. So a wizard can't call himself "magus."
Also, the names of classes and prestige classes are not static. It's just a "generalized" name used to represent the ideals and theme of the class/prestige class.
Sure, any wizard can dub themselves an "archmage".
But only the kingdom of Exeloria grants wizards the title of High Arcanist of the Moonborn Brotherhood, and offers training and forms of magic that no other arcanist can have access to (hence, the Archmage abilities no other Wizard has access). Or the Guild of Extraordinarily Supernatural Mages can grant thee the title of "Supreme Wizard", and give access to the rituals, magic, and power to harness energies even the mightiest wizards don't have access to unless they learn from the guild.
Just like playing a Paladin doesn't mean the same thing everywhere. You can be Holy Knight of the Lost Truths in one land, or called a Divine Cavalier in another, or be known as the Warrior of Light elsewhere...but all use "Paladin" training, abilities, etc.
Wizards could be known as Arcanists, Mages, Bookblasters, whatever. But to be an "Archmage" or "High Arcanist" or "Noble Mage" or "Wizard of the Silver Robes", etc., should not only be prestigious in title but also power.
So I think Paizo's stance on not making prestige classes based on titles of a class being a more powerful version of a core class is very flimsy logic. If it was as simple as a name change, then they should've changed the name. But I see nothing wrong with meeting requirements to acquire a new "tier" of power of a class, as long as there are sacrifices made (hence, the Archmage lost spell slots).
That's the problem with RPG companies these days; don't always pander to people's sensibilities. Tell them "It's your game, your imagination, if you need an explanation why being an archmage is a prestige class and not part of being just a high level wizard, here's our suggestion, but only you should fill in the rest how you please."
The fundamental problem with the archmage as a class isn't the name or the balance. It's that "being the ultimate wizard" should be achieved by taking levels of wizard, not some other class.
You have a class where real wizards sniff in disdain that the members have walked away from true mastery of wizardly magic in exchange for a bag of tricks or hyperspecialization or whatever, you have a viable prestige class. That clearly isn't the archmage.
And yes, the Loremaster makes much of the same mistake; it is far too little differentiated from a pure wizard on a class features basis. But at least it doesn't come with fluff that describes it as a wizard-only-better.
Yes. But it's a class now, and it's meaning is that it's a fighter/wizard base multiclass character who dual wields a longsword and a touch spell. So a wizard can't call himself "magus."But he can never call himself "magus." :PAny wizard at all should be able to call himself a mage.
Any wizard with level 8 spells should be able to call themselves a magei think a wizard fits quite a few of the listed definitions for the word.
I don't see the difference between this and wizard, sorcerer, enchanter, conjurer, warlock, and so on: Outside of D&D/Pathfinder, those words mostly mean the same thing. Asking someone who doesn't know the game what the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer is, you'll get blank stares.*
But the game uses some of them for specific definitions of special kinds of spellcasters.
*If you ask a Discworld fan, he'll tell you that sourcerers are all-powerful super-wizards, wizards squared, if you will, that are the source of magic and that amplifiy the magical powers of everyone around them. And if you mention "sourcerer" to a Discworld wizard, he'll mumbling about how dreadful that whole business was and that he, incidentally, was in the countryside at the time and missed the whole thing, so he definitely wasn't part of any of the unpleasantness, you understand, no really.