| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the Arcanist should have something like a Warlock's Eldritch Blast. But call it something like Arcane Power, and have it equal to their Caster Level divided by 2 (rounded up) -- or it starts at 1 and increases every odd level.
Sort of steals a page...
Oh please no...
The warlock was nothing more than a broken vehicle to that other game 4.0 dumbed down to the point absurdity. No class should ever have an ability to do direct damage infinitely. Doesn't matter if its 1d4 or 10d6. The with the mechanics that pathfinder uses, someone would stack bonuses with it and twist it, augment with a feat, bloodline, tattoo...
Just a really bad idea.
Not to be too negative but I had really bad experiences with the warlock in 3.5.. ad nauseum.
I really need to ask how this happened. Like, no sarcasm, no derision, just how did it happen?
My experiences with Warlock were very different, finding it to be rather limited out of the box with additional content expanding it only somewhat. Like many people I thought 'unlimited spells and suchlike' was going to be overpowered but in practice Warlock faces some extremely sharp limitations, including and especially in the blasting department. Eldritch Glaive can bring a melee warlock up to about Rogue damage, but...
The other Invocations were cool, flavorful, aaaaand weak. So many of them were minor 24 hour buffs that taking them was essentially a set-and-forget bonus, and the others that weren't arrived many levels too late in a lot of cases. The really cool ones were so few and so far between that it was easy to miss out on them, or required specialized resources to take full advantage of them (Flee the Scene).
TL;DR unlimited blasting is only an issue if you have a method of circumventing the action economy. Warlock didn't and while Arcanist could cast a quickened spell and then blast they'd be infinitely better off using Quicken and then casting the same spell with their standard action, but augmented with metamagic. Pathfinder doesn't really do SLA-metamagic to my knowledge and 3.5 only barely did so, so it's not like there's a wealth of options running around to turn you into some kind of acid-spewing mini Godzilla.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh please no...
The warlock was nothing more than a broken vehicle to that other game 4.0 dumbed down to the point absurdity. No class should ever have an ability to do direct damage infinitely. Doesn't matter if its 1d4 or 10d6. The with the mechanics that pathfinder uses, someone would stack bonuses with it and twist it, augment with a feat, bloodline, tattoo...
Just a really bad idea.
Not to be too negative but I had really bad experiences with the warlock in 3.5.. ad nauseum.
You mean the way a Fighter can by picking up a weapon and bashing the enemy to death? Yeah, those Fighters should totally have a weapon swings/day limitation.
People get their panties in a twist over at-will abilities, but in the end there's very little meaningful difference between an at-will ability and one limited by uses/day, but with enough uses to get you through the day. And no meaningful difference at all for something that just deals damage like eldritch blast.
... the arcanist DOES have a niche.
Wizards get power though sheer effort, study and hard work.
Sorcs get power from their blood, they're born with it and it comes to them when they call (Not always as they want it... but it comes)
An arcanist is what happens when a sorcerer... studies up.
Someone with innate power that also puts in serious effort to learn how magic works.
Its a niche, its a good one. Why are we arguing about this?
"Some spellcasters weave magic into a beautiful tapestry. Others draw upon their innate gift to produce magic. _____ take a different route—seeing magic for what it really is, _____ are able to pull apart magic, deconstructing the bonds that hold it together and forcing it to obey their will. It is not an easy task, but this talent allows them to wield magic like no others."
"Beyond the veil of the mundane hide the secrets of absolute power. The works of beings beyond mortals, the legends of realms where gods and spirits tread, the lore of creations both wondrous and terrible—such mysteries call to those with the ambition and the intellect to rise above the common folk to grasp true might. Such is the path of the _____. These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge, drawing on cultic arts to work wonders beyond the abilities of mere mortals. _____ prove a cunning and potent lot, capable of smiting their foes, empowering their allies, and shaping the world to their every desire."
Show this to a person who's never read PF before. Ask them which one is the Wizard.
|
Last week folks like Rastlin, and Harry Potter and every other character of fiction with a talent for magic and a Education to match, was wizards. But now it seems they was Arcanists all along.
Ah I get it now. Harry Potter was an Arcanist in a school full of Wizards. No wonder he had such problems fitting in.
That said, CapD, can you give me an example of a pure Wizard, ie someone who does not come from a prestigious magical lineage but does magic only through his in-depth studies of the arcane phenomena ? That would be a Wizard.
|
Oh please no...
The warlock was nothing more than a broken vehicle to that other game 4.0 dumbed down to the point absurdity. No class should ever have an ability to do direct damage infinitely. Doesn't matter if its 1d4 or 10d6. The with the mechanics that pathfinder uses, someone would stack bonuses with it and twist it, augment with a feat, bloodline, tattoo...
Just a really bad idea.
Not to be too negative but I had really bad experiences with the warlock in 3.5.. ad nauseum.
You mean the way a Fighter can by picking up a weapon and bashing the enemy to death? Yeah, those Fighters should totally have a weapon swings/day limitation.
People get their panties in a twist over at-will abilities, but in the end there's very little meaningful difference between an at-will ability and one limited by uses/day, but with enough uses to get you through the day. And no meaningful difference at all for something that just deals damage like eldritch blast.
Craft, you want really want to compare all the different classes? What I was referring to was that the Warlock was broken pure and simple, in situations were combat drug on, priests ran out of spells, wizards and sorcs ran out of spells, melee down on hp, warlocks did the same dam thing every single round... I roll my Xd6 eldritch blast. It was a class a four year old could play.
What I don't want to see is another version of the warlock called the arcanist, that never runs out of points and makes all of the other (INT)casters obsolete. Then then the phrase is said: why would I ever want to play a sorc, wizard, witch, when I can play the arcanist and do so much more, when I want, what I want, and better than any other class. The only downside to the arcainst is that its one (sometimes two) levels in spell progression than the wizard, however the arcanist starts off gaining two spells when they hit a new level instead of one for the new level of spells. Wow big loss there, not.
This class needs a major rewrite.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Craft, you want really want to compare all the different classes? What I was referring to was that the Warlock was broken pure and simple, in situations were combat drug on, priests ran out of spells, wizards and sorcs ran out of spells, melee down on hp, warlocks did the same dam thing every single round... I roll my Xd6 eldritch blast. It was a class a four year old could play.Oh please no...
The warlock was nothing more than a broken vehicle to that other game 4.0 dumbed down to the point absurdity. No class should ever have an ability to do direct damage infinitely. Doesn't matter if its 1d4 or 10d6. The with the mechanics that pathfinder uses, someone would stack bonuses with it and twist it, augment with a feat, bloodline, tattoo...
Just a really bad idea.
Not to be too negative but I had really bad experiences with the warlock in 3.5.. ad nauseum.
You mean the way a Fighter can by picking up a weapon and bashing the enemy to death? Yeah, those Fighters should totally have a weapon swings/day limitation.
People get their panties in a twist over at-will abilities, but in the end there's very little meaningful difference between an at-will ability and one limited by uses/day, but with enough uses to get you through the day. And no meaningful difference at all for something that just deals damage like eldritch blast.
If melee was out of hit points, how was the Warlock not out of hit points? Because that's the per-day limit I discovered pretty swiftly for them - they ran out of HP well before the casters ran out of spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh please no...
The warlock was nothing more than a broken vehicle to that other game 4.0 dumbed down to the point absurdity. No class should ever have an ability to do direct damage infinitely. Doesn't matter if its 1d4 or 10d6. The with the mechanics that pathfinder uses, someone would stack bonuses with it and twist it, augment with a feat, bloodline, tattoo...
Just a really bad idea.
Not to be too negative but I had really bad experiences with the warlock in 3.5.. ad nauseum.
You mean the way a Fighter can by picking up a weapon and bashing the enemy to death? Yeah, those Fighters should totally have a weapon swings/day limitation.
People get their panties in a twist over at-will abilities, but in the end there's very little meaningful difference between an at-will ability and one limited by uses/day, but with enough uses to get you through the day. And no meaningful difference at all for something that just deals damage like eldritch blast.
Craft, you want really want to compare all the different classes? What I was referring to was that the Warlock was broken pure and simple, in situations were combat drug on, priests ran out of spells, wizards and sorcs ran out of spells, melee down on hp, warlocks did the same dam thing every single round... I roll my Xd6 eldritch blast. It was a class a four year old could play.
What I don't want to see is another version of the warlock called the arcanist, that never runs out of points and makes all of the other (INT)casters obsolete. Then then the phrase is said: why would I ever want to play a sorc, wizard, witch, when I can play the arcanist and do so much more, when I want, what I want, and better than any other class. The only downside to the arcainst is that its one (sometimes two) levels in spell progression than the wizard, however the arcanist starts off gaining two spells when they hit a new level instead of one for the new level of spells. Wow big loss there, not.
This...
HAving played a few warlocks. I'd take the wizard any day. Infinite resources isn't the same as effective resources.
The only downside to the arcainst is that its one (sometimes two) levels in spell progression than the wizard, however the arcanist starts off gaining two spells when they hit a new level instead of one for the new level of spells. Wow big loss there, not.
You're forgetting that specialist wizards get another spell added to each level. So the Arcanist gets two spells when it gets a higher tier of spells... Giving it two spells to the Wizard's three.
|
|
Perhaps this has already been addressed.... But I didn't see any thing. Ok so the more I look at the arcanist revision, the more I like it, yet the more I worry about the numbers. At first level, their arcane reservoir can hold up to three points, and they gain 2 per day. No biggie. At 2nd level, their reservoir can hold six points, and they get back 2 per day. This forces you to consume spell slots, of shich you don't have very many, in order to fill your pool. You also, in order to be of any use, need to spend all of your money on scrolls wands, etc in order to have your pool be of any use. I am not sure how well balanced the numbers are here... Your AR is used for so much, particularly that +1 CL and DC.
|
|
Last week folks like Rastlin, and Harry Potter and every other character of fiction with a talent for magic and a Education to match, was wizards. But now it seems they was Arcanists all along.Ah I get it now. Harry Potter was an Arcanist in a school full of Wizards. No wonder he had such problems fitting in.
That said, CapD, can you give me an example of a pure Wizard, ie someone who does not come from a prestigious magical lineage but does magic only through his in-depth studies of the arcane phenomena ? That would be a Wizard.
Ged, Wizard of Earthsea. Willow might also qualify.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Icy Tomb (Su): Whenever the arcanist uses the ice missile exploit, she can expend two points from her arcane reservoir instead of one. If she does, the target is coated in a rime of ice if it fails its saving throw. This ice causes the target to be entangled and take 1 point of Dexterity damage at the start of its turn. The target can break free from the ice as a standard action by making a Strength check with a DC equal to 10 + the arcanist’s Charisma modifier. If the target takes more than 10 points of fire damage from a single attack, the ice melts and the effect ends. The arcanist must have the ice missile arcanist exploit before selecting this exploit.
What is the effect of this ability against a target that is immune from cold damage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the Arcanist would be better served by getting their Charisma modifier + 1/2 level in points per day, and then at 8th level it becomes Cha+level? I dunno, my two coppers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like this class so much that I think is the best class Paizo have made so far. Actually my only suggestion is that the refresh of exploit to be CHA + 1/2 arcanis level. The way that Int is reserved for spellcasting and Cha for exploits make for a very elegant solution, you can focus in spellcasting and have high Int low Cha or focus in exploits and have low Int high Cha (like a warlock).
Ged, Wizard of Earthsea. Willow might also qualify.Last week folks like Rastlin, and Harry Potter and every other character of fiction with a talent for magic and a Education to match, was wizards. But now it seems they was Arcanists all along.Ah I get it now. Harry Potter was an Arcanist in a school full of Wizards. No wonder he had such problems fitting in.
That said, CapD, can you give me an example of a pure Wizard, ie someone who does not come from a prestigious magical lineage but does magic only through his in-depth studies of the arcane phenomena ? That would be a Wizard.
Those are good.
I'm sure there's mre I can think of.
In any case in my mind the wizard is a scholar who uses magic as a tool to explore the universe. He doesn't bother to question how or why he does what he does because there's a lot of universe to explore.
However the Arcanist to me represents the theorhetical physcist. He doesn't explore the universe so much as it explains how it works in ways and means that make other scientists heads explode in various ways. In this case it's literal.
EDIT: Oh Elric of Melnibone was a wizard long before he was a magus. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only a fallacy if the design is in fact, objectively, sloppy. As the accuser of sloppiness that puts the burden of proof on YOU.The principle itself provides the proof. If it requires rule 0 to fix it infers there's a problem in the first place. That's why I linked the readins', so peoples can see what its aboots'.
No, I'm aware of what it is. The Oberoni principle is a claim. I made a counter claim and then provided supporting evidence. You've simply restated the claim again, but no reasoning or explanation of why mine is wrong.
I feel like I'm going to be repeating myself, but I'll try to be more articulate. I accept that just because rule 0 exists, that itself doesn't preclude the existence of problems, I also reject this proposed corollary that application of rule 0 dictates that a problem was present.
Rule 0 only infers that a problem existed if what it was used for is objectively a problem. If I rule 0 that fireballs are blue, does that mean there was a problem before that? If I rule 0 to introduce defensive rolls or wound points, was there a problem beforehand? Like I said, unless you are willing to describe player preference as a PROBLEM of the system, then the answer is no. Therefore if I assert that rule 0 was applied for preference reasons, if I'm wrong, and there is actually an objective problem, then there should be evidence for that. As the fallacy invoker, presenting that evidence is on that party. Otherwise no fallacy has occurred, since you cannot have a subjective fallacy.
Is that clearer?
I think it makes sense: Immunity to Cold means you can't be *damaged* by cold, but you can still be physically impeded by it. Likewise a creature immune to fire can still drown if they're submerged in lava.
If I rule 0 that fireballs are blue, does that mean there was a problem before that?
Yes, the problem is that they had no color!
Rule 0 isn't the best fix for mechanics. Doesn't come with a manual.
Also, we're going offtopic probably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think the Consume Magical Items is overly expensive looking at it more closely. This will cause party friction.
Fighter: "Oh hey look, a potion of cure moderate wounds! Just what I needed and..."
Arcanist: "Woot! *breaks* omnomnom arcane power."Fighter: But... I'm bleeding out!
Arcanist: "pew pew lazers!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ged, Wizard of Earthsea. Willow might also qualify.Last week folks like Rastlin, and Harry Potter and every other character of fiction with a talent for magic and a Education to match, was wizards. But now it seems they was Arcanists all along.Ah I get it now. Harry Potter was an Arcanist in a school full of Wizards. No wonder he had such problems fitting in.
That said, CapD, can you give me an example of a pure Wizard, ie someone who does not come from a prestigious magical lineage but does magic only through his in-depth studies of the arcane phenomena ? That would be a Wizard.
Those are good.
I'm sure there's mre I can think of.
In any case in my mind the wizard is a scholar who uses magic as a tool to explore the universe. He doesn't bother to question how or why he does what he does because there's a lot of universe to explore.
However the Arcanist to me represents the theorhetical physcist. He doesn't explore the universe so much as it explains how it works in ways and means that make other scientists heads explode in various ways. In this case it's literal.
EDIT: Oh Elric of Melnibone was a wizard long before he was a magus. :)
the elric that had his powers because of his Royal bloodline, yes he was a wizard then pehaps he became a magus to some, but now o am afraid he is a Arcanist, and so is Merlin( som of a demon, student with the Master Blaise) and Ged ( in the books magic is an in born talent that can be developed with training)
I regret that i sound negative. But i think it is a Real issue. If the devs think that what we need is an alternative to the Classic d&d wizard then ok so be it. The sorcerer was that and i personally think it could have been more elegant but ok. I will stop repeting my self unless someone ask for a clarification and try to look at a suggestion in stead.Happy gaming folks.
Edit : because i write on my phony phone.
I. Look at the Arcanist Reservior and scratch my head.
I see that at third level my character will get two points out of a maximum of nine. This seems out of Waco to me. Thoughts?
It is only strange in the sense that no other mechanic of points that recharge per day works that way.
I agree that it probably is not a great idea in he long run. I would be interested in how the recharging winds up being dealt with in effective builds going forward.
Last week folks like Rastlin, and Harry Potter and every other character of fiction with a talent for magic and a Education to match, was wizards. But now it seems they was Arcanists all along.Ah I get it now. Harry Potter was an Arcanist in a school full of Wizards. No wonder he had such problems fitting in.
That said, CapD, can you give me an example of a pure Wizard, ie someone who does not come from a prestigious magical lineage but does magic only through his in-depth studies of the arcane phenomena ? That would be a Wizard.
Sorry, i should be polite and reply directly. Last week the worlds was full of wizards but now we are down to Willow, and pehaps John Constantine who i think is the perfect magic hacker type btw.
The point is that the magic character, in pathfinder, is at the moment defi de by how he gets his magic and the arcanist is the same as the wizard.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Counterspell is really nice, though since you have fewer spells/day now, a straight 1-on-1 fight with either a Sorcerer or Wizard will burn you out of counterspells long before they run out of things to throw at you (aside from the fact that you'll run out of AP long before either).
I believe you will find that this perception will prove untrue in practice. If your opponent is only casting a single spell each round, you will use your immediate action to attempt to counter it (with good odds if you are even level), and then still have a spell to cast at your foe each round with your standard action. While you will be effectively "2 for 1ing" through your spells each round, if you opponent is not high enough level to quicken a spell, he or she will simply be dead in the water. Even if they are high enough level to quicken, it is a horribly inefficient position of huge disadvantage to be in.
I will take that option every day of the week and twice on Thursday, which is why immediate action counterspelling is entirely too strong of an ability, particularly if it is only available to 1 9th level casting class out of 8.
|
|
Since there's a dispel check, you only have about a 50% chance of dispelling if you ID the spell. If you fail to dispel, then you still lose your spell slot. It improves to about a 75% chance if you have the spell prepared. And it uses up a very rare and expensive AR point.
It might be cheap in terms of actions, but it is expensive and risky.
At low levels, I believe your thoughts to be reasonably fair ones.
Regarding dispel check: At higher levels, the odds will be considerably in your favor. 90k gold on an otherwordly kimono and orange prism ioun stone effectively scores you a +5 on caster level checks. Those are caster staple items for any worth their salt, and not even as high as you can stack things if you get into more obscure stuff.
Regarding point expenditure: Considering their is a later exploit that replenishes your AR when you use the conterspell exploit, this is considerably less problematic. Personally, if I was to design a spell caster capable of immediate action counterspells, the only things I would not be willing to sacrifice for it are caster levels and casting stat. It's just too strong against other casters and worth most any price because of it.
Lead Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there folks,
After finally recovering from my Turkey coma, I have gotten caught up on this thread and thought I would post a few notes.
1. Lets drop the martial vs. caster discussion. That is not what this thread is about. That is a very well explored argument and the design team is well versed in the positions of the various camps. There is no need to drag this class into the discussion. If you want to continue, start a new thread is a part of the boards unrelated to the playtest.
2. There are some issues with some various abilities of this class. I will be addressing some of these for the revised playtest PDF. Others will undoubtedly wait until the final version of the class. I want to thank the folks who have taken the time to analyze these abilities and give us feedback.
3. Concerning the overall power balance of this class as compared to the sorcerer and wizard. I think I am much happier with the balance than I was before. The spells per day is starting to feel "right" to me when taking into account the other features of the class. I am not saying it is locked in 100%, but I think I am more interested in tuning the exploits to balance the rest of the class. I understand the arguments here about the value of its versatility, but I think the reduced overall number of slots and delayed acquisition of higher level slots more than pays for it. As usual, I am interested in further discussion.
4. Although this thread has been mostly civil, I want to remind folks to remember that we are all here to make a better game. Sniping and rude posts are not helpful to this process and we will take steps to ensure things remain on the up and up.
5. Remember, the survey should still be based on the original version of the class. Wait to update those surveys until the revised version of the playtest document is released.
That is all for now...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
[ Doesn't matter if its 1d4 or 10d6. The with the mechanics that pathfinder uses, someone would stack bonuses with it and twist it, augment with a feat, bloodline, tattoo...
People with weapons say hi.
Also cantrips.
Also srsly you think there's a problem with a caster being able to do a little bit of damage to one target whenever he wants?
Craft, you want really want to compare all the different classes? What I was referring to was that the Warlock was broken pure and simple, in situations were combat drug on, priests ran out of spells, wizards and sorcs ran out of spells, melee down on hp, warlocks did the same dam thing every single round... I roll my Xd6 eldritch blast. It was a class a four year old could play.
I think the word you are looking for is "simple" or "boring" not "broken".
Also, again, the Fighter says hi. Because that's basically a Fighter who uses elemental damage instead of weapon damage right there.
Seriously, explain to me exactly what is so broken about XdY damage every round?
What I don't want to see is another version of the warlock called the arcanist, that never runs out of points and makes all of the other (INT)casters obsolete.
Ah, yes. Small amount of single target damage will obsolete other casters. Of course.
Then then the phrase is said: why would I ever want to play a sorc, wizard, witch, when I can play the arcanist and do so much more, when I want, what I want, and better than any other class. The only downside to the arcainst is that its one (sometimes two) levels in spell progression than the wizard, however the arcanist starts off gaining two spells when they hit a new level instead of one for the new level of spells. Wow big loss there, not.
You do realize Wizards ALSO gain 2 new spells per level, right?
Icy Tomb (Su): Whenever the arcanist uses the ice missile exploit, she can expend two points from her arcane reservoir instead of one. If she does, the target is coated in a rime of ice if it fails its saving throw. This ice causes the target to be entangled and take 1 point of Dexterity damage at the start of its turn. The target can break free from the ice as a standard action by making a Strength check with a DC equal to 10 + the arcanist’s Charisma modifier. If the target takes more than 10 points of fire damage from a single attack, the ice melts and the effect ends. The arcanist must have the ice missile arcanist exploit before selecting this exploit.What is the effect of this ability against a target that is immune from cold damage?
Why would it change anything, unless they're also immune to being Entangled?
Ok back.
This time with some thing usefull, pehaps.
My suggestion is as follows.
Make the exploits really good, to give the feeling of the Magic hacker( some one that dosent play by the rules of magic)
Make explotis to hijack all sorts of spells and effects.
Make exploits to modify all sorts of spells.
make explotis to ad meta magic to spells cast by others and by the arcanist.
Make explotis that allow items to be drained or modifyed on the fly.
Make explotis that do all sort of freaky, powerfull, deadly and beutifull effects.
Base the stuff on some sort of pool be it arcane or somthing else.
syncronize a bit with the powers and the pool the magus gets just make the number of exploits( i like arcana better but that dosent matter)bigger and make some that is Advanced Exploits. make a system to use the arcane points to add meta magic to the spells.
But make it a 6th level caster using either the wizard/sorcerer list or her own list. But ad exploits to import spells from other arcane lists.
The guy who does things differently, if that is the flavor we want, shuld be different, and casting high level spells is way more important than any other class feature the class have at the moment imop.
And goodnigth:)
|
***
3. Concerning the overall power balance of this class as compared to the sorcerer and wizard. I think I am much happier with the balance than I was before. The spells per day is starting to feel "right" to me when taking into account the other features of the class. I am not saying it is locked in 100%, but I think I am more interested in tuning the exploits to balance the rest of the class. I understand the arguments here about the value of its versatility, but I think the reduced overall number of slots and delayed acquisition of higher level slots more than pays for it. As usual, I am interested in further discussion.
***
Maybe this is just my experience, but I feel like there is a certain amount of "spell waste" that the Sorcerer and Wizard are vulnerable to that the Arcanist just isn't. As a Wizard I have to carefully pick each of my spells out individually to try and cover an array of likely scenarios. If I pick Deep Slumber and never run into the low HD mobs I was expecting, the spell goes unused. Similarly, if I'm a Sorcerer at an even numbered level (say 6th) and I pick Fireball as my classic spell to wrap up an adventure in the icy northern wastes and the next stretch of adventure involves me fighting Salamanders, Red Dragons, and Fire Elementals in caverns beneath an active volcano, I probably won't be getting much use out of my 3rd level spells until I level up or snag a magic item that opens up what I can do with those slots.
The Arcanist eliminates "spell waste". He'll never have to pause and say "Crap, I shouldn't have memorized Lightning Bolt, the dragon from the rumors is actually a Blue, not Black like we thought!" He gets the advantage of preparing as best he can at the start of the day, and then if he miscalculates with one of his spell choices he can still redirect those resources towards another spell if he's got it, or feed useless slots into his his Exploits. He operates with a level of efficiency that the sorcerer can't touch and that Wizard (in my experience) only even brushes against in theory by being able to leave slots open to prepare later (something that has never actually proven useful in any game I've been a part of, since I generally don't have a couple hours to sit down and memorize a spell once I realize I need it).
I think that that efficiency more than compensates for having two spells of each level less a day than a sorcerer or the same amount as a generalist wizard at a slower progression.
All that being said, I really like the Arcanist and I can't point at any one thing about the class and say I'd like it changed (the current revision is just really cool), but I do honestly feel like it's a step above the two classes that are themselves generally a step above most other classes in effectiveness.
I do love that there's a class with an efficient mechanic for counterspelling. Counterspelling is one of the clunkiest and least efficient mechanics in the game, balanced against the player at almost every turn. Giving a class a mechanical and thematic incentive to counterspell is something I've wanted for a while, and I'm glad it's here, and hope it's here to stay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose that I'm in the minority, but the drop off in spells per day seems unnecessary, especially when the arcanist has to either expend spell slots or magic items to get his pool anywhere near capacity.
|
|
Seriously, explain to me exactly what is so broken about XdY damage every round?
Ok Rynjin I will break it down for you. In PFS you get 2PP per successful scenario. That 2PP can buy you a fully charged wand, a 50 charge wand of magic missiles...
So the Arcanist and the Wizard go adventuring, in a 5-9 scenario. At the beginning of the scenario the Arcanist can siphon off how ever many charges they need. So basically as the Wizard and Sorc have run out of spells the Arcanist keeps using his SU abilities, and can throughout the entire scenario: without ever casting a spell. So lets say the Arcanist gets low on points... slurp, there go 10-20 more charges, and now he's fully or near fully charged. The sorc and wizard.. .no so much.
Your entire point about spell levels and number of spells is irrelevant.
You have still overlooked: The Arcanist powers are all SU, that means they can be cast without either a V/S/M component.
As was stated before the Arcanist is a 1 for 2 action caster. They can counter and cast in the same turn.
However if this class were to be "fixed" it would not have a pool to cast at SU abilities, but would be limited to CHA or INT bonus like the other casters.
Seriously, explain to me exactly what is so broken about XdY damage every round?
Ok Rynjin I will break it down for you. In PFS you get 2PP per successful scenario. That 2PP can buy you a fully charged wand, a 50 charge wand of magic missiles...
So the Arcanist and the Wizard go adventuring, in a 5-9 scenario. At the beginning of the scenario the Arcanist can siphon off how ever many charges they need. So basically as the Wizard and Sorc have run out of spells the Arcanist keeps using his SU abilities, and can throughout the entire scenario: without ever casting a spell. So lets say the Arcanist gets low on points... slurp, there go 10-20 more charges, and now he's fully or near fully charged. The sorc and wizard.. .no so much.
Your entire point about spell levels and number of spells is irrelevant.
You have still overlooked: The Arcanist powers are all SU, that means they can be cast without either a V/S/M component.
As was stated before the Arcanist is a 1 for 2 action caster. They can counter and cast in the same turn.
However if this class were to be "fixed" it would not have a pool to cast at SU abilities, but would be limited to CHA or INT bonus like the other casters.
First: PFS's particular houserules and idioms are its own problem, not ours.
Second: If all a caster is doing in an encounter in my game is blast I'll be pretty grateful for it and move on.
Seriously, explain to me exactly what is so broken about XdY damage every round?
Ok Rynjin I will break it down for you. In PFS you get 2PP per successful scenario. That 2PP can buy you a fully charged wand, a 50 charge wand of magic missiles...
So the Arcanist and the Wizard go adventuring, in a 5-9 scenario. At the beginning of the scenario the Arcanist can siphon off how ever many charges they need. So basically as the Wizard and Sorc have run out of spells the Arcanist keeps using his SU abilities, and can throughout the entire scenario: without ever casting a spell. So lets say the Arcanist gets low on points... slurp, there go 10-20 more charges, and now he's fully or near fully charged. The sorc and wizard.. .no so much.
Your entire point about spell levels and number of spells is irrelevant.
You have still overlooked: The Arcanist powers are all SU, that means they can be cast without either a V/S/M component.
As was stated before the Arcanist is a 1 for 2 action caster. They can counter and cast in the same turn.
However if this class were to be "fixed" it would not have a pool to cast at SU abilities, but would be limited to CHA or INT bonus like the other casters.
First: PFS's particular houserules and idioms are its own problem, not ours.
Second: If all a caster is doing in an encounter in my game is blast I'll be pretty grateful for it and move on.
Third: To use Consume Spell it takes a 2nd level spell atleast so a Wand of Magic Missles doesn't cut it. I don't play PFS so I don't know how that changes things, but I imagine it does.
|
|
Icy Tomb (Su): Whenever the arcanist uses the ice missile exploit, she can expend two points from her arcane reservoir instead of one. If she does, the target is coated in a rime of ice if it fails its saving throw. This ice causes the target to be entangled and take 1 point of Dexterity damage at the start of its turn. The target can break free from the ice as a standard action by making a Strength check with a DC equal to 10 + the arcanist’s Charisma modifier. If the target takes more than 10 points of fire damage from a single attack, the ice melts and the effect ends. The arcanist must have the ice missile arcanist exploit before selecting this exploit.What is the effect of this ability against a target that is immune from cold damage?
Hmm, by the rules Energy Resistance and Immunity don't seem to affect secondary effects of an energy-based attack (unlike Damage Reduction). You can even catch a Fire Elemental on fire (though it won't take damage, of course). Well, that assumes you read the "catching on fire" rules as doing fire damage. As written it is untyped (one presumes the intention is so clear they forgot to mention it was fire damage). Funny.
Edit: This makes some sense in some contexts. Presumably Ice Elementals could be trapped in ice (assuming they don't have an ice glide ability or something).
Being entangled by the attack seem acceptable, but the dexterity damage? It seem frostbite, but a creature immune to cold wold be immune from frostbite.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Concerning the overall power balance of this class as compared to the sorcerer and wizard. I think I am much happier with the balance than I was before. The spells per day is starting to feel "right" to me when taking into account the other features of the class. I am not saying it is locked in 100%, but I think I am more interested in tuning the exploits to balance the rest of the class. I understand the arguments here about the value of its versatility, but I think the reduced overall number of slots and delayed acquisition of higher level slots more than pays for it. As usual, I am interested in further discussion.
...
Okay then, it's official now. Sorcerers are dead.
I give up.
3. Concerning the overall power balance of this class as compared to the sorcerer and wizard. I think I am much happier with the balance than I was before. The spells per day is starting to feel "right" to me when taking into account the other features of the class. I am not saying it is locked in 100%, but I think I am more interested in tuning the exploits to balance the rest of the class. I understand the arguments here about the value of its versatility, but I think the reduced overall number of slots and delayed acquisition of higher level slots more than pays for it. As usual, I am interested in further discussion....
Okay then, it's official now. Sorcerers are dead.
If you don't need more than 6 different spells of each level, I'd say Sorcerers are fine. Unless you put extreme value in Item creation which most folks can bypass by increasing the DC or getting a consumable to cast it for you.
|
|
Seriously, explain to me exactly what is so broken about XdY damage every round?
Ok Rynjin I will break it down for you. In PFS you get 2PP per successful scenario. That 2PP can buy you a fully charged wand, a 50 charge wand of magic missiles...
So the Arcanist and the Wizard go adventuring, in a 5-9 scenario. At the beginning of the scenario the Arcanist can siphon off how ever many charges they need. So basically as the Wizard and Sorc have run out of spells the Arcanist keeps using his SU abilities, and can throughout the entire scenario: without ever casting a spell. So lets say the Arcanist gets low on points... slurp, there go 10-20 more charges, and now he's fully or near fully charged. The sorc and wizard.. .no so much.
Your entire point about spell levels and number of spells is irrelevant.
You have still overlooked: The Arcanist powers are all SU, that means they can be cast without either a V/S/M component.
As was stated before the Arcanist is a 1 for 2 action caster. They can counter and cast in the same turn.
However if this class were to be "fixed" it would not have a pool to cast at SU abilities, but would be limited to CHA or INT bonus like the other casters.
First: PFS's particular houserules and idioms are its own problem, not ours.
Second: If all a caster is doing in an encounter in my game is blast I'll be pretty grateful for it and move on.
Hot this power work will change a lot based on table variations.
If you are playing with a GM that try to follow the WBL guidelines and give characters extra stuff when they are under WBL it will work very well. "I have drained the spider climb wand we found." GM put a extra 2nd level wand in the next loot the party find.
If instead the GM don't care much for WBL it will drain the party resources.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Wizard is a professional programmer who works at Google. The Sorcerer is Zuckerberg. The Arcanist is a hacker that works at 7-11.
Where does the Witch fit? I'm thinking something like "the really smart homeschooled person who might not have gotten the full breadth of education like the others but who has picked up a few things that aren't even on their radar."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow..that just happened. Nice of you to tell the pathfinder society to go get bent.
First: PFS's particular houserules and idioms are its own problem, not ours.
If I wanted to tell them to get bent I'd just say it. I haven't spent the last eleven years hiding my contempt for PFS and I'm not going to start now. However, as it turns out, that had nothing to do with my statement. Interactions between PFS's houserules and a published class are by definition PFS's problem; deviate from the core rules and the ball is in your court, not the designers'. Complaining about the combination between Class Feature A and Pathfinder Society Policy B is just as illegitimate as if I was complaining about Class Feature A's combination with My House Rule C.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Concerning the overall power balance of this class as compared to the sorcerer and wizard. I think I am much happier with the balance than I was before. The spells per day is starting to feel "right" to me when taking into account the other features of the class. I am not saying it is locked in 100%, but I think I am more interested in tuning the exploits to balance the rest of the class. I understand the arguments here about the value of its versatility, but I think the reduced overall number of slots and delayed acquisition of higher level slots more than pays for it. As usual, I am interested in further discussion....
Okay then, it's official now. Sorcerers are dead.
I give up.
Okay then, it's official now. Hyperbole is alive and well.
After having played an Arcanist, I can assure you your fears are misguided.