|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First: PFS's particular houserules and idioms are its own problem, not ours.
Wow..that just happened. Nice of you to tell the pathfinder society to go get bent.
PFS breaks assumptions of the game, and removes other mechanics completely. It utilizes an organized set of houserules that nearly outnumber the actual rules, and that makes it really hard to use PFS assumptions to have a decent discussion about the core game mechanics. For a particularly relevant example, PFS doesn't allow crafting, and it doesn't follow WBL, except with the most vague and general handwave. This makes discussions about the impact of an Arcanist munching on his wands like candy bars very difficult to have because it will be totally different in PFS play than it will in most any other venue of play. Prince isn't saying "Get bent if you play PFS"; he's saying "That venue doesn't follow the basic assumptions of the game and shouldn't be a major consideration in evaluating a new class" (I think).
PFS should evolve to suit the game, it is literally just one of the many vehicles used to introduce this game to new players, or give existing players without a group a home to come play at. The assumptions of PFS need to evolve in sync with the game, the game should not bow to PFS house-rules in establishing core balance.
First: PFS's particular houserules and idioms are its own problem, not ours.
Wow..that just happened. Nice of you to tell the pathfinder society to go get bent.
PFS breaks assumptions of the game, and removes other mechanics completely. It utilizes an organized set of houserules that nearly outnumber the actual rules, and that makes it really hard to use PFS assumptions to have a decent discussion about the core game mechanics. For a particularly relevant example, PFS doesn't allow crafting, and it doesn't follow WBL, except with the most vague and general handwave. This makes discussions about the impact of an Arcanist munching on his wands like candy bars very difficult to have because it will be totally different in PFS play than it will in most any other venue of play. Prince isn't saying "Get bent if you play PFS"; he's saying "That venue doesn't follow the basic assumptions of the game and shouldn't be a major consideration in evaluating a new class" (I think).
PFS evolves to suit the game, it is literally just one of the many vehicles used to introduce this game to new players, or give existing players without a group a home to come play at. The assumptions of PFS need to evolve in sync with the game, the game should not bow to PFS house-rules in establishing core balance.
You get a bro hug, Ssalarn. Any chance you're going to apply that insightful intellect to the Quills and Razor soon?
|
|
You get a bro hug, Ssalarn. Any chance you're going to apply that insightful intellect to the Quills and Razor soon?
You have my promise that I'll get something up in the Path thread really soon :) Obviously the ACG has been absorbing a pretty substantial amount of my very limited gaming time. I tried playtesting Path of War and ACG classes together and discovered that I was having a really hard time determining a baseline of how everything was performing compared to the completed and published material because I didn't actually have anything built using pre-existing material in the playtesting (other than the monsters).
You have my promise that I'll get something up in the Path thread really soon :) Obviously the ACG has been absorbing a pretty substantial amount of my very limited gaming time. I tried playtesting Path of War and ACG classes together and discovered that I was having a really hard time determining a baseline of how everything was performing compared to the completed and published material because I didn't actually have anything built using pre-existing material in the playtesting (other than the monsters).
You get a bro hug, Ssalarn. Any chance you're going to apply that insightful intellect to the Quills and Razor soon?
'Sokay, I've been doing this instead of finishing Shattered Mirror, which is the last step to releasing Knives!BaseClass for open beta. I just haven't had the will to write so I've been crunching numbers and running scenarios on these things.
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.
From an optimization standpoint you've got a better alternative for arcane casting, but... they still have a different set of class features(though easy to rob, by this class in particular), and they... crap. On the upside, they still aren't nearly in the boat rogues or monks are in. Sorcerers are still one of the most powerful characters in the games by virtue of having 9 level casting. I'd still play my sylvan sorcerer instead of an arcanist.
In other news... Arcanist! I like the revamp much more than I like the original. Would like to see more crazy 'spell hacking' and I'm curious if I'll have mana cookies, but I'll have to wait on any delicious magical confections I'm sure. I don't mind them having plenty of slots myself, but I've never thought x/day slots was the best solution anyway(I think I've said that in the thread already).
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind, especially for this class, is something that it seems a lot of people forget.
The average game is not one dominated by wizards. The average game is one where the greatest concern is if martial X is doing too much damage, ending combats too fast because he's doing too much damage. The average game is not made up of people who spend all their time on the CharOp forums. The average game is full of people who love to make sorcerers because they are better than wizards. Why are they better than wizards? Well, it's because they can cast fireball more often, duh. It's the game where the rogue is overpowered because he can do 4d6 each att--ok, that's not the average game either, but it's close to it. Rogues are thought of highly in the average game for their skills, and their high damage spike capabilities.
That's the average game.
And that's what we should be focusing more energy than we are on: The average case. That isn't to say that the optimal case, as the discussion is about here as far as I can tell, isn't important. It is. Especially for keeping strict environments like PFS in rein. But when discussing something, it's not the best idea to discuss only the exceptions to the rule.
Another example is the summoner. The summoner is a decent caster that has an amazing pet that is dead simple to make into some great horror hellbent on marginalizing all the other martial players. Except not, because it came to be this on accident. Yes! This overpowered beast whose player was asked to change characters came about by accident.
Yes, it's absolutely true that played to the limits, a wizard can be a scary thing. With or without metamagic. But that's when it is played to its limits. The player of the average wizard? He reads the messageboards and goes "Huh, I wonder how it's possible all these guys are running into balance issues with the wizard. My fireballs aren't causing any issues."
Yes, it's true that the ability to ignore the stat split imposed by Charisma-based abilities is an issue. I trust that Jason will rig something up to fix that.
But the average arcanist?
He's going to see their fiery bolt ability and think it is the Coolest. Thing. Ever. Because he can shoot rays! Of Fire! At The Faces Of Goblins! He'll happily chow through his few spells per day to fuel this, because hot damn, he's got some goblins to grill, and he's all out of fireballs.
So lets discuss the arcanist with this in mind. We've had 400 posts already discussing the optimal case.
And most importantly of all, let's see some playtests.
Cheapy, your logic has no power here. :P
(I agree completely)
Honestly I don't think Fiery Bolt is going to be turning heads at even the "average" table.
Fiery Bolt is boooooring compared to the other damage-y ones. =)
I really would like if they were beefed up though. One point for a single target thingamajig? Seriously?
Make 'em worthwhile.
Cheapy for Forum President.
He's got my vote.
Edit: I think I've seen all of TWO playtest results, including my own? Which admittedly was just testing in some combat encounters, but that's still two results in all of 400+ posts.
Come on, people, we're better than this. Get out there and roll some dice!
And most importantly of all, let's see some playtests.
Ironic that you are asking for experiential evidence in a post where you assert without evidence that a certain playstyle is the typical, average game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cheapy, I'ma say something and it's gonna be kinda wordy, and I want you to know that it's not hostile, and it's not even really a rebuttal. It's just my side of the story.
This idea that the average game is low-op, no-op, or op-agnostic is not lost on me. Indeed, it's part of the reason I get so passionate and upset - because I don't view my paradigm as hurting those people.
The thing about options that are much weaker than other options - or much stronger than other options - is it's easy to accidentally ruin people's fun. Pathfinder is a super rules-heavy game and a lot of these groups like following the rules, will turn to the book or the FAQ for arbitration. My argument has never been that these people are Doing it Wrong and don't deserve consideration. My argument is that if design is Done Right in the first place these low-no op groups will never notice, but the people who do care will have more fun.
Look at Tome of Battle. Look at Legend if you haven't already. They're very, very friendly to groups and players with no system mastery because they follow the very basic design principle that if you pick something that looks cool it is certified to be cool. I could pick my maneuvers (or tracks, in Legend) with nine shots of whiskey and a dartboard and come out with a character capable of being cool and taking on heroic challenges in a world full of Magic and Monsters, where Civilization is Threatened by Evil.
Pathfinder is not that game. Things that look cool are often not cool, and sometimes they're too cool and feelings get hurt or campaigns get ruined. And that's not okay. A little bit of standards never hurt anyone.
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.
I know I analyzed the numbers earlier in the thread, but I just want to stress how weak the damage exploits are. They need to be stronger or they need to not cost anything to use (I don't mind them taking an Exploit, though, as long as they're free or stronger and assuming there's an extra exploit feat coming).
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.
I agree with you. Compared to the Wizard and Sorcerer, things are pretty balanced. I do, however, think that if the Exploits will be the focus (and I like that--Witch is great because the Hexes take center stage over the spells), that the Arcanist needs more fuel for them to start. If they have to use their spells for fuel, they'll be in serious trouble.
I don't think relying on magic items is a good move because, well, I don't use magic items in my game, so if the Arcanist is balanced assuming they'll eat wands or something, they'll be pretty weak in my games, which is unfortunate.
Okay then, it's official now. Sorcerers are dead.
I don't see how--Sorcerers are the magical specialists. If you want to be a blaster, you would still want to be a Sorcerer. If you wanted to be an enchanter, you'll still want to be a Sorcerer. If you want to be a generalist and the party face, you'll still be a Sorcerer. And of course, there's still the flavor aspect of the bloodlines. NO, there are definite niches where Sorcerer's excel.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Okay then, it's official now. Sorcerers are dead.
I give up.
It must be very dark where you are, the way the sky keeps falling. That's what, twice this week already?
I really don't like the arcanist's powers being called exploits. Sounds too martial/boring.
Bendings? Manipulations? Breakdowns? I dunno, but...
Oooh, ability names!
Breaches, Breakthroughs, Hacks, Shortcuts, Seams, Cracks, Grifts, Tricks, Slides, Adjustments, Alterations, Revisions, Rewrites, Edits, Paramagic, Backdoors, Piggybacks, Entrances, Levers...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind, especially for this class, is something that it seems a lot of people forget.
The average game is not one dominated by wizards. The average game is one where the greatest concern is if martial X is doing too much damage, ending combats too fast because he's doing too much damage. The average game is not made up of people who spend all their time on the CharOp forums. The average game is full of people who love to make sorcerers because they are better than wizards. Why are they better than wizards? Well, it's because they can cast fireball more often, duh. It's the game where the rogue is overpowered because he can do 4d6 each att--ok, that's not the average game either, but it's close to it. Rogues are thought of highly in the average game for their skills, and their high damage spike capabilities.
That's the average game.
The average game is one where the spellcaster cast fly or invisbility and no one thinks about the ramifications. I think we're confusing something about average with perceptions. Ramifications and mechanics and potential are all pretty darn important. The fact its capable of being subvert can be even deadlier depending on how you view things.
However, we aren't going to fix anything wrong with that and its engrained into other parts of the game, so there's no point in dragging it into this thread. The arcanist however is still mutable and very playable and friendly as far as I can tell without the capability to force its potential further than other spellcasters through exploits, though its versatility is something to be jealous of.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't like the arcanist's powers being called exploits. Sounds too martial/boring.
Bendings? Manipulations? Breakdowns? I dunno, but...
Oooh, ability names!
Breaches, Breakthroughs, Hacks, Shortcuts, Seams, Cracks, Grifts, Tricks, Slides, Adjustments, Alterations, Revisions, Rewrites, Edits, Paramagic, Backdoors, Piggybacks, Entrances, Levers...
Not a fan of Backdoors or Piggybacks (especially one right after the other like that......) but I like "Breaches". "I'm going to Breach my Mage Armor spell so I can hurl elemental force at the goblin!"
Yeah, I like that.
The only downside I side I see is that, with my group, it'd only be a matter of time before someone commented on how the Arcanist was "Getting too big for his Breaches" or something similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Exploits fit just fine.
They're exploiting loopholes in the normal magical rules, taking shortcuts, and so on.
I like the Revision...
Still think the Spell System would be brilliant for an alternate magic system.
I like the Revision...
Still think the Spell System would be brilliant for an alternate magic system.
Fun fact: Its used in other systems.
Would be a bit weird to have all the casters use the same system when the big difference between them is the way they cast and what they cast wouldn't it?
One thing I find clever is that with Consume Magic Items and Scribe Scrolls, your unused spell slots can be used to power your abilities the next day, if you scribe them down.
Still, I'm wary of any ability that balances out power with gold. WBL assumes you'll have X GP at Y level. If you spend Z gold to power your abilities, the GM is supposed to ensure that you still have X at level Y.
Ok Cheapy, throw kingdom building rules into the mix, a true spreadsheet to track gold usage would be...
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.
Is reducing its number of prepared spells/day on the table as well? Personally I think that's the real problem, and not its number of spell slots, especially because you can use things that modify a sorcerer's spells known to augment an arcanist's spells prepared.
No Bloodlines? At all? Not even the options of linking it to them? Mechanically it seems strong but flavour seems to be much more Wizard-ish than Sorcerer now.
I would have preferred at least some options to tie in Bloodlines, maybe being able to choose Bloodline powers as an Exploit or something along those lines.
I'm really glad they dropped the Bloodline thing--I personally have always hated Bloodlines as a concept and was always annoyed that I needed one just because I preferred spontaneous casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see exploits that can manipulate spells like effects of sorcerer bloodlines and specialization schools. Something like being able to change the energy type of a spell, or add your CHA modifier to the duration of spells whose duration is rounds/level.
I also think there should be an exploit that let's them gain a MIC feat, and a greater exploit that functions like Arcane Builder that requires the former as its prereq.
Another exploit would allow you to waste reservoir in order to swap a prepared spell for another one, so long as you are willing to pay reservoir equal to the spell's level, useable a number of times per day equal to the CHA modifier.
An exploit that lets you waste a reservoir point(s) as an immediate to gain your CHA to saves against an arcane spell would be kinda cool.
Still think reservoir needs to be CHA + 1/2 level, incentifying the player to not dump CHA, and naturally we would get a feat in the form of Extra Reservoir which would add 2 to the reservoir the Arcanist gains at the beginning of the day.
From the Arcanist revision, under "Spells"
An arcanist’s may know any number of spells, but the number she can prepare each day is limited. At 1st level, she can prepare four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells each day. At each new arcanist level, the number of spells she can prepare each day increases, adding new spell levels as indicated on Table XX–XX: Spells Prepared. Unlike the number of spells she can cast per day, the number of spells an arcanist can prepare each day is not affected by her Intelligence score. Feats and other effects that modify the number of spells known by a spellcaster affect the number of spells the arcanist can prepare.
I can only interpret this to mean that Arcanists can make use of things like Expanded Arcana and Paragon Surge. By strict RAW, Pages of Spell Knowledge don't work (since it technically isn't a numeric adjustment to your spells known), but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the intention and it were clarified later.
The real question is whether an Arcanist with Expanded Arcana can change what two spells they gain with that feat every day when they prepare spells, or they're stuck with the two spells they chose at the time of acquiring the feat. If the latter, then the feat's only worth using with Paragon Surge. If the former, it's an automatic feat for every Arcanist.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whew. Finally read all of that. There are a few things people keep saying that are either blowing my mind or just not computing.
First of all, not only is this absolutely still a hybrid class, it's suddenly a shining example of what a hybrid should look like. The main class feature of both the sorcerer and the wizard is casting, and this class uses their spell list but combines their methods of casting. That was always the hook for the class, but now they've taken the core concept and married it to more interesting flavour and unique mechanics. It's perfect. It combines important elements of its parent classes without seeming too much like either one of them. This is what I want from all of the ACG classes. It feels like it has a real reason to be.
This class also does a lot of conventional things in unconventional ways, which is a big part of its flavour. I wish people would keep an open mind to things being done in new ways. The few exploits available thus far feature a brand new way to teleport, a brand new way to counterspell, a brand new way to (temporarily) dispel, etc. Doing familiar things in new ways should be a welcome breath of fresh air. The nuances of these exploits may not have been fully balanced yet, but I wish people would give them a chance before decrying them. It's so rare Paizo reaches out of their normal comfort zone with regard to the way these sorts of things work, it'd be a shame to give them the impression we didn't want new types of abilities.
That all said, here are my class observations prior to playtesting (and I will be extensively playtesting):
1) This class gets so few arcane points at low levels and already has such a reduced number of spells per day, it's going to be incredibly difficult to manage well without feeling boring at low levels. Being able to sacrifice spell slots for points is great, but won't often be possible at low levels with its current resources. Likewise, magic items are much harder to come by at low levels. I don't think regaining points should be any easier, but arcanists should have a way to begin low levels with more points. Having their points based on Cha + 1/2 level (minimum 1 overall) seems more reasonable.
2) Consuming spells and magic items as a standard action is rough. Again, balancing resources is going to be tricky with this class. Forcing them to effectively waste a turn to regain points when so many of their exploits are situational and won't necessarily come up every day seems over the top. They should really be able to convert their resources as a swift action so they only have to do it when they know they're about to need those points. It would go a long way toward compensating for how few spells and points they have.
3) Counterspell is great to have, and I'm excited that this class is filling the niche of being the class that's good at doing all the quirky caster stuff it's hard to do well with other classes. This seems like a much needed stab at making counterspelling a little more realistic and, Paizo, I applaud your willingness to give it a shot.
4) I love teleportation, and dimensional slide is the alternative to dimension door I've always wanted. This ability is better in some ways and worse in others to the teleportation specialist wizard's first level power, but either way I couldn't be happier that this exists and again, Paizo, I applaud the fresh take. This power single-handedly made me fall in love with the arcanist.
5) I'd honestly like to see more of the exploits (especially at low levels) feature other exploits as prerequisites, so it felt like there were little exploit pathways you could follow if you wanted. For instance, spell tinkerer could be a way to suspend the duration of active spell effects (as it currently is) but the ability to strip buffs from enemies with a touch attack could be separated out into a different exploit that requires spell tinkerer as a prerequisite. Finally, if this were done perhaps disrupt spell (now a greater exploit) could be demoted to a regular exploit that requires both of the aforementioned as prerequisites, making it usually available at 5th level when dispel magic first becomes available to wizards. This way, it would feel like there were a number of specific directions the arcanist could focus on (counterspelling, dispelling/suppressing, metamagic, etc.).
Anyway, I can't wait to playtest!!
actually, cheapy brings a question to mind--can you use metamagics on your abilities? i'd love to see a force strike+toppling spell or the like.
actually, cheapy brings a question to mind--can you use metamagics on your abilities? i'd love to see a force strike+toppling spell or the like.
In 3.5 there were a few meta-power feats from Tome of Magic I believe, that let you basically use minor metamagics like Extend or Still/Silent on a supernatural power once a day.
Otherwise, no, you can't add metamagic to supernatural or spell-like abilities.
If the Arcanist can take the same human favoured class bonus and prepare as many spells as a sorcerer can know and change them every day then it does completely shaft the sorcerer. Sorcerers get Bloodlines yes but most of them are crap. Compare the Arcane Bloodlines ability to reduce the metamagic speed increase a handful of times per day to the ability to do the same thing for a single point of pool.
At this point you are basically left with comparing one fixed bonus bloodline spell against the ability to switch your spell list around every single day.
Not quite: You can't take the Sorcerer favored class bonuses with an Arcanist, at least until the developers decide otherwise (I certainly hope they don't, the Arcanist is ridiculous enough!). Arcanist's favored class bonus for humans will probably be the wizard's "Add one spell to your spellbook at least one level lower than the highest spell level you can cast" which is not nearly as good.
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.
Ged had inner power, that's why he went to become a mage to begin with, didn't he? The whole "conjuring mist to save the village" part was more inner power wasn't it?
Willow I agree with though. One might want to add Hermione from the Harry Potter books when discussing "no magical lineage", and her magical expertise clearly came from superior studiousness, though she might have had inner power too? Never delved that deep into the HP universe.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The HP universe is pretty clear that some sort of "spark" is needed. There are people that flatly cannot do magic, whether they study hard or not (Muggles and Squibs), and young wizards often manifest wild, uncontrolled magical effects when untrained, so there must be some sort of internal power in there somewhere.
Let's face it, D&D style Wizards are pretty much nonexistent outside of D&D and its derivatives. The idea that someone can just study hard and start casting spells is a rare one, usually there's an idea of an innate gift, whether or not study is needed to draw out its full potential.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we should see the arcanist as a reboot of older edition spellcasters?
It has all the thematic flavor of the wizard, has very limited options at low levels, but becomes increasingly superpowered at high levels.
:D:D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does. This is not a good thing.I much prefer the new wizard, which has a little more to do at low level.
I seem to be in the minority, but I consistently play at low to mid levels. All this talk of Arcanists being uber strong because of 9th level spells is interesting in theory but irrelevant to me. Unless I can sweet talk someone into running an AP that goes 1 to 20, I'm never going to see a caster get above levels 12 to 15. A class that delves even further into the traditional 'Suck at low level but a god at high level' paradigm becomes unplayable to me. Most players wiling to play that type of class are playing games that start at mid to high levels already. Only the dedicated would nurse their character through 5 levels of being the insignificant guy in the back plinking away with a crossbow just so they could be the "rofl... 0wn3d" guy in later levels. The type of mentality most attracted to god characters isn't willing to spend 5 levels worth of sessions in real time saying "I load and fire my crossbow again" every round. Especially when the GM's response is "you miss" the closer your caster gets to relevance.
My vote is to take the blasty powers out of the arcane pool expenditure but keep them as exploits. Alternately, give a completely unrelated blast at level 1 that does 1d6 + 1/level damage that has 3 + int/cha modifier of uses per day.
It does. This is not a good thing.I much prefer the new wizard, which has a little more to do at low level.
I seem to be in the minority, but I consistently play at low to mid levels. All this talk of Arcanists being uber strong because of 9th level spells is interesting in theory but irrelevant to me. Unless I can sweet talk someone into running an AP that goes 1 to 20, I'm never going to see a caster get above levels 12 to 15. A class that delves even further into the traditional 'Suck at low level but a god at high level' paradigm becomes unplayable to me. Most players wiling to play that type of class are playing games that start at mid to high levels already.
A 1st-level Arcanist can easily be a perfectly competent adventurer. They can't ROFLSTOMP the game to bits, but they can easily hold their own against any other class at that level. Assuming you start with 20 INT (unless you're using a punishing point buy or get bad rolls there's no reason not to do this as a primary caster), you get 4 spell slots/day and 2 spells prepared. So long as you're being intelligent with Silent Image and Obscuring Mist, that's all you should need to get you through the day.
| 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.
You are not the only one, I think loads of people have voiced a desire for more spells since consuming stuff with be highly circumstantial at best.
An alternative would be to give the class scribe scroll as a bonus feat, so they can consume their leftovers the next day. And it should be a bonus feat imo, so they aren't getting taxed.
An alternative would be to give the class scribe scroll as a bonus feat, so they can consume their leftovers the next day. And it should be a bonus feat imo, so they aren't getting taxed.
Wait a second.
*rereads the arcanist revision*
They don't get scribe scroll!? Why? It's something every spellbook-using class needs to function on a basic level.
An alternative would be to give the class scribe scroll as a bonus feat, so they can consume their leftovers the next day. And it should be a bonus feat imo, so they aren't getting taxed.Wait a second.
*rereads the arcanist revision*
They don't get scribe scroll!? Why? It's something every spellbook-using class needs to function on a basic level.
Magus and witch don't get it either.
It does. This is not a good thing.I much prefer the new wizard, which has a little more to do at low level.
I seem to be in the minority, but I consistently play at low to mid levels. All this talk of Arcanists being uber strong because of 9th level spells is interesting in theory but irrelevant to me. Unless I can sweet talk someone into running an AP that goes 1 to 20, I'm never going to see a caster get above levels 12 to 15. A class that delves even further into the traditional 'Suck at low level but a god at high level' paradigm becomes unplayable to me. Most players wiling to play that type of class are playing games that start at mid to high levels already. Only the dedicated would nurse their character through 5 levels of being the insignificant guy in the back plinking away with a crossbow just so they could be the "rofl... 0wn3d" guy in later levels. The type of mentality most attracted to god characters isn't willing to spend 5 levels worth of sessions in real time saying "I load and fire my crossbow again" every round. Especially when the GM's response is "you miss" the closer your caster gets to relevance.
This isn't why I/We think that the Arcanist is powerful, though I can understand where you get the impression. Versatility and the ability to end encounters at a stroke are the reason Arcanist is powerful.
Charm, Color Spray, Hideous Laughter, Web, Hold Person, Slow, Protection from Alignment, Magic Circle Against Alignment - these are the kinds of hostile actions that Arcanists and, indeed, Casters in General excel at. Each one takes one or more enemies and tells them, "Your part in this fight is over." Slow can hit an entire encounter at the same time; Hold Person and Hideous Laughter are essentially save-or-die effects, as is Color Spray. I haven't named a single spell above third-level casting yet, and it's at fourth-level that true battlefield control comes online in Pathfinder and means that the Arcanist gets to decide how an engagement is determined.
And that's not even talking about the buffs! When I'm playing a caster I start the game as a dynamic contributor to every encounter and I end it as a credible threat to lesser deities.
I hope that helps clear up my position. Like, honestly, I feel misunderstood 'roundabouts here. Further questions are welcome via PM.
Magus and witch don't get it either.
Magus doesn't? Wow, I've been playing (and running) the class wrong this whole time.
I knew the Witch didn't but she's not actually a spellbook caster.