The blast seem a little boring. Hope it gets more things that change spells and play with them over time. Raw arcane energy has got to be the source for a lot of potential. Additionally, the pool seems a little bit small for lower levels. That's when those same blast are the most useful. Don't suppose it'll get a small boost to what it starts with at the cost of a lower growth later on?
(Giant in the Park?)
Giant in the playground. It a forum and where the webcomic order of the stick is from. Some people have opinions about the place and community among other things.
Aren't full casters always the folks breaking and making loopholes in the universe?So your point is "class X is balanced with class Y, despite being completely superior to Y 99.99% of the time because class Y's best possible trick ever, which also happens to be the most broken rule exploit in the game, is still better than class X"?
That's not a good argument.
Human Sorcerers are also quite good. I like comparing best tricks to other best tricks because it lets us test the waters of pure power. The game is built on making choices that aren't necessarily great but cool and thematic. So if we test for balance, we should be testing the very echelons of power between the classes.
A good Sorcerer preps spells that are very versatile in application. Conjuration spells and maybe a few buffs for his lower level spells.
And it depends on the Campaign you run. If its a very freeform game with downtime, obviously Wizards and Arcanists are gonna rock since they have time to study and purchase new spells whereas if your constantly assaulted a Sorcerer will outlast both of them.
Prince of Knives' comment wasn't snide, Cheapy. He has to interact with this community when designing products so of course understanding its views on how the game works is valuable. Yours was. (Giant in the Park?)This community would say that.How about neither one of you draw conclusions and make snide comments based on a single post from either community?If this is a general trend I think I may have learned something valuable about how this community understands balance.And I think we all just learned a lot about the Giant in the Park community's views on balance.
As do I.
I must've been confusing where Prince came from with where ErrantX came from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about neither one of you draw conclusions and make snide comments based on a single post from either community?If this is a general trend I think I may have learned something valuable about how this community understands balance.And I think we all just learned a lot about the Giant in the Park community's views on balance.
I wasn't attempting to be snide and I do apologize if I came off that way. Part of my participation here is attempting to understand how the Paizo Boards (my first potential Customer Base, Capital Letters Enabled) understand game balance and game theory as it relates to Pathfinder. The utter lack of concern over metamagic reveals a lot more than the simple statement would suggest.
Potent Magic (Su): Whenever the arcanist expends one use of her arcane reservoir to increase the caster level of a spell, the caster level is increased by 2 instead of 1. Whenever she expends one point from her arcane reservoir to increase the DC of a spell, the DC is increased by 2 instead of 1.
I think that the first sentence is off on this entry. Correction?
It's clear at this point that I need to go sleep.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Human Sorcerers are also quite good. I like comparing best tricks to other best tricks because it lets us test the waters of pure power. The game is built on making choices that aren't necessarily great but cool and thematic. So if we test for balance, we should be testing the very echelons of power between the classes.
You don't balance one class to the most broken exploit in the game and then say it's balanced because it's not that broken. In pretty much every other situation, Arcanists are flat-out superior to Sorcerers in every way that matters.
A good Sorcerer preps spells that are very versatile in application. Conjuration spells and maybe a few buffs for his lower level spells.
And yet never nearly as versatile as Arcanists. Human Socerers with their FCB won't be overshadowed as badly, but they will still being overshadowed. And again, if a class has to use its best tricks and builds just to be on par with another one, then they are not balanced at all, that's one class struggling to keep up (and probably failing).
And it depends on the Campaign you run. If its a very freeform game with downtime, obviously Wizards and Arcanists are gonna rock since they have time to study and purchase new spells whereas if your constantly assaulted a Sorcerer will outlast both of them.
Hardly. Increasing spell slots is so much cheaper and easier than increasing spells known and prepared casters can make much better use of feats such as Inscribe Scroll and craft Wondrous Items, which gives them even more spells per day. Arcanists are spontaneous casting Wizard, how can anyone pretend that's not absurdly powerful?
But you know what? I'm tired of this argument. Paizo doesn't care if this class is freaking broken or not. I'll just ban it in my games and try to keep a modicum of balance... I gotta admit I didn't expect the ACG to be the very first book to convince me ban a whole class. That's some serious ground-breaking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must've been confusing where Prince came from with where ErrantX came from.
No, same place - we both started up on Giant in the Playground, which actually does have quite a base of people who don't really care about optimization. It might not seem that way when you walk in, though, because many of them don't bother to frequent the 3.5 boards and instead hang out in the PbP section.
Also skewing the image somewhat is inheriting some of the funniest, most talented optimizers ever to take a stab at 3.5. Emperor Tippy scares me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's clear at this point that I need to go sleep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't attempting to be snide and I do apologize if I came off that way. Part of my participation here is attempting to understand how the Paizo Boards (my first potential Customer Base, Capital Letters Enabled) understand game balance and game theory as it relates to Pathfinder. The utter lack of concern over metamagic reveals a lot more than the simple statement would suggest.How about neither one of you draw conclusions and make snide comments based on a single post from either community?If this is a general trend I think I may have learned something valuable about how this community understands balance.And I think we all just learned a lot about the Giant in the Park community's views on balance.
Communities can change wildly depending on where you go. It depends a lot on what your allowed to say, how you can say it, and who the locals are. Ideally there's a lot of overlap though, if that matters. Lots of details to speak of that I probably shouldn't.
That said, metamagic is pretty darn powerful when used right. More devastating in 3.5 if I remember correctly, but I haven't looked into comparing the two too much. I do miss my ability to shape spells or stack vile damage or become an uttercold overlord, or persist things... but that might just be the slightly evil min maxer in me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of why OotS values metamagic so highly is because the majority of posters there were dealing with high-level optimization in 3.5 and many gradually made the shift to PF, often combining materials from both systems.
Well, that and OotS tends to have a naturally high baseline level of optimization whenever they build things. This is the forum that refers to Paragon Surge as a balance point for the sorcerer in a perfectly serious tone.
That said I haven't really noticed any particularly abusive form of metamagic-use in PF, certainly nothing like the things 3.5 enthusiasts could cook up with incantatrix or the mailman builds. The closest you get is occasional Spell Perfection shenanigans (which comes online very late) and the obligatory Magical Lineage Intensified Shocking Grasp for the magus.
And my God yes, if you want to see some truly fascinating game system exploration google some of the Tippy threads. Tippy-verse is equal parts terrifying and amazing.
Say how many spells can I prepare per day as a 2nd level Arcanist? This one has me stumped. It says to refer to the table for it, but the only one available is spells per day.
The spells prepared table is unchanged - you still use the one in the original play test document.
That said, metamagic is pretty darn powerful when used right. More devastating in 3.5 if I remember correctly, but I haven't looked into comparing the two too much. I do miss my ability to shape spells or stack vile damage or become an uttercold overlord, or persist things... but that might just be the slightly evil min maxer in me.
There's this weird divide where metamagic in 3.5 had better feats but reducers were less commonly available. Pathfinder full casters have much easier access to metamagic reduction but some of the weirder utility metamagics haven't transported over. With that in mind many truly frightening ones did, and with the boosted reducer access Maximum Power is well and truly enabled.
Human Sorcerers are also quite good. I like comparing best tricks to other best tricks because it lets us test the waters of pure power. The game is built on making choices that aren't necessarily great but cool and thematic. So if we test for balance, we should be testing the very echelons of power between the classes.You don't balance one class to the most broken exploit in the game and then say it's balanced because it's not that good. In pretty much every other situation, Arcanists are flat-out superior to Sorcerers in every way that matters.
A good Sorcerer preps spells that are very versatile in application. Conjuration spells and maybe a few buffs for his lower level spells.And yet never nearly as versatile as Arcanists. Human Socerers with their FCB won't be overshadowed as badly, but they will still being overshadowed. And again, if a class has to use its best tricks and builds just to be on par with another one, then they are not balanced at all, that's one class struggling to keep up (and probably failing).
And it depends on the Campaign you run. If its a very freeform game with downtime, obviously Wizards and Arcanists are gonna rock since they have time to study and purchase new spells whereas if your constantly assaulted a Sorcerer will outlast both of them.Hardly. Increasing spell slots is so much cheaper and easier than increasing spells known and prepared casters can make much better use of feats such as Inscribe Scroll and craft Wondrous Items, which gives them even more spells per day. Arcanists are spontaneous casting Wizard, how can anyone pretend that's not absurdly powerful?
Ah you allow Crafting feats. Alrighty, then yeah they win when you let them mess with WBL. But so does the Wizard.
I'd say a Kitsune Feyblooded Sorcerer Enchanter wouldn't get overshadowed either.
Paizo just released the thing 3 hours ago. I highly doubt any playtesting has been done on it. I wouldn't say they didn't care about balance. Its easier to start high and tone down after all. In the absolute best conditions, Schrodinger's Arcanist is likely to be a monster. Oh no, he was surprised and hes in the exact same position as the Wizard now. -_-
There's this weird divide where metamagic in 3.5 had better feats but reducers were less commonly available. Pathfinder full casters have much easier access to metamagic reduction but some of the weirder utility metamagics haven't transported over. With that in mind many truly frightening ones did, and with the boosted reducer access Maximum Power is well and truly enabled.
I'm not seeing the prevalence of MM reduction in PF.
PF has:
Magical Lineage
Wayang Spell Hunter
Spell Perfection (Not available until level 15 and has strong restrictions)
3.5 has:
Practical Metamagic
Metamagic School Focus
Easy Metamagic
Arcane Thesis
Divine Metamagic
Spelldancing
The entire Incantatrix class
So, the more I look over this, the more... balanced it actually seems to be when I make some sample characters. For example, let's do a level 8 comparison, and say each character has 20 in their primary casting stat:
Wizard (specialist) spells per day: 4/7/5/5/4
Sorcerer spells per day: */8/7/6/4
Arcanist spells per day: 4/6/5/5/3
Spells known/prepared:
Wizard: Prepares one spell per slot, each slot must be cast as prepared
Sorcerer (including bloodline): 8/6/4/3/1
Arcanist: 8/5/3/2/1
Additional restrictions:
Wizard: Opposed skills require 2 slots, must prepare 1 of specialty spell.
Sorcerer: 1 spell known must match bloodline spell. Cannot switch prepared spells.
Aracnist: None
So here's my analysis on this: Arcanists are best for their mid level spells, and suffer the most for high level spells. In this example, not only do they have the lowest number of 4th level spells, but can only cast a single spell for those 3 times, like the sorcerer. At the next level, they get an additional prepared spell, but at this point, the wizard is already on 5th level spells, and the sorcerer learns two more spells (one being bloodline) while still being up a slot. The lower level slots have A LOT more flexibility, on the other hand, but will eventually be 2 behind the sorcerer, and 1 behind the specialist wizard, which I think is still pretty significant.
In no way does the Arcanist look overwhelmingly powerful, but I'll have to look at more levels of play. They're still really strong at higher levels... I think the spells prepared could maybe be a *little* bit lower to compensate for their flexibility, but they don't seem as stupidly overpowered as it seemed at first. This is of course, ignoring class features for the meantime, I'm just looking over the spells/day and prepared list which is causing a lot of concern.
|
Lemmy, I have to ask, in all honesty: Is there any way that you would think this class is not overpowered unless they simply remove 8th and 9th level spells from their list? It seems that your problem is not with the class, but with spells. I would like to know what you think could balance this class, other than simply removing the top 3 levels of spells. Please. (This could be taken very negatively, but I want you to know, I"m being sincere...I would like to know if you think there is any real way to find a middle ground of balance)
There's this weird divide where metamagic in 3.5 had better feats but reducers were less commonly available. Pathfinder full casters have much easier access to metamagic reduction but some of the weirder utility metamagics haven't transported over. With that in mind many truly frightening ones did, and with the boosted reducer access Maximum Power is well and truly enabled.I'm not seeing the prevalence of MM reduction in PF.
PF has:
Magical Lineage
Wayang Spell Hunter
Spell Perfection (Not available until level 15 and has strong restrictions)3.5 has:
Practical Metamagic
Metamagic School Focus
Easy Metamagic
Arcane Thesis
Divine Metamagic
Spelldancing
The entire Incantatrix class
Note 'easier access' being the term used. Pathfinder has it all in one spot and some of it is native to a class. 3.5's are spread all over the place and you'll find precisely none of it in OGL content.
Ah you allow Crafting feats. Alrighty, then yeah they win when you let them mess with WBL. But so does the Wizard.
Yeah, and Wizards are more powerful than Sorcerers without having spontaneous casting.
I'd say a Kitsune Feyblooded Sorcerer Enchanter wouldn't get overshadowed either.
I disagree. Lots of stuff become downright immune to Enchantment. It's not a particularly good arcane school. The Kitsune Feyblooded trick is a nice
trick, but I'd still much rather have access to every spell in my spell list and a bunch of class features that put more bloodlines to shame.Paizo just released the thing 3 hours ago. I highly doubt any playtesting has been done on it. I wouldn't say they didn't care about balance. Its easier to start high and tone down after all. In the absolute best conditions, Schrodinger's Arcanist is likely to be a monster. Oh no, he was surprised and hes in the exact same position as the Wizard now. -_-
Not much of a Schoridigger, since he doesn't have to predict how many castings of each spell he will need. He can keep a couple universally useful spells, such as summons, buffs, teleport, etc and not lose anything at all if he guesses a couple spells wrong. Wizards lose their spell slot, Arcanists don't. They have the best of both worlds.
If an Arcanist is a Schordingger, what about Sorcerers, who have to predict the whole campaign (or at least the whole character level) when "preparing" their spells?
Note 'easier access' being the term used. Pathfinder has it all in one spot and some of it is native to a class. 3.5's are spread all over the place and you'll find precisely none of it in OGL content.
Hmm, I guess that's fair, though I specifically excluded things that only work with particular spells or particular metamagic feats like theologian.
I like how this version uses multiple ability scores; it reminds me of the Cleric.
I love the blasty abilities (mirroring what other folks have said, this is the Pathfinder Warlock that people have been clamoring for). I also like how this class is *really* good at Metamagic. As far as spellcasters in general go, that is a niche that no one has claimed for themselves unless you count the Arcane sorcerer bloodline. (I don't.)
I really like the capstone, but casting spells from your reservoir a la spell recall seems like something that would be cool to get at a lower level and to have improved by the capstone, similar to how you have spell recall and then improved spell recall that halves the arcane point cost for recalling a spell.
While cool, these damage-based arcane exploits are much more powerful than similar sorcerer/wizard class features. I think this class needs some sort of limiter in its casting power. These exploits are comparable to a witch's hexes in power (abet not at-will) and that class has a limiter in the form of its spell list. Off the top of my head, you could force the arcanist to "bar" several schools of magic like a specialist wizard, but an exploit could allow the character to overcome that restriction by spending points from the arcane reservoir.
At 1st level, the arcanist must select two schools of magic to bar. In order to prepare spells belonging to the barred school, the arcanist must expend a number of points from her arcane reservoir equal to the spell's level. These points cannot be regained in any manner (including via consume spells and similar effects) until the arcanist rests and re-prepares her daily allotment of spells."
Other then that, nice job team! This class has a MUCH better identity now then the original pitch did, and as I mentioned, the fact that its basically a Pathfinder Warlock is a sweet direction to take the class.
Since when?
Pearls of Power and Pages of Spell Knowledge cost the same.
You get extra spell slots by simply raising your casting attribute. Something every caster does anyway.
Anyway, sir. Good night, I really gotta go to bed. Nice talking to you even if we completely disagree. I'm just so very tired of this discussion... (And physically tired as well, it's been a long day.)
Cheers.
Since when?
Pearls of Power and Pages of Spell Knowledge cost the same.
You get extra spell slots by simply raising your casting attribute. Something every caster does anyway.
Anyway, sir. Good night, I really gotta go to bed. Nice talking to you even if we completely disagree. I'm just so very tired of this discussion... (And physically tired as well, it's been a long day.)
Cheers.
Good night sweet prince. And remember, if you want to make use of those neat features Arcanists gets, you have to raise charisma too.
this is the Pathfinder Warlock that people have been clamoring for
Not even close. Anything that uses daily resources is the complete opposite of what someone working for warlock wants. There's also a lack of nostalgia for those attractive melee builds.
Then I come here and you guys are still saying it is overpowered. I literally cannot understand how people can be saying this. I was overwhelmed by the notion.
Permit me to try and aid in your comprehension:
When you're playing/observing a wizard or sorcerer in a campaign, how many spells do they typically expend on a given challenge? Combat, yes, but also, say, puzzles, or social situations, information gathering, the like. How many spells do they burn through?
this is the Pathfinder Warlock that people have been clamoring forNot even close. Anything that uses daily resources is the complete opposite of what someone working for warlock wants. There's also a lack of nostalgia for those attractive melee builds.
I miss my Hellfire Warlock. He got destroyed by Blackfire.
I wasn't attempting to be snide and I do apologize if I came off that way. Part of my participation here is attempting to understand how the Paizo Boards (my first potential Customer Base, Capital Letters Enabled) understand game balance and game theory as it relates to Pathfinder. The utter lack of concern over metamagic reveals a lot more than the simple statement would suggest.How about neither one of you draw conclusions and make snide comments based on a single post from either community?If this is a general trend I think I may have learned something valuable about how this community understands balance.And I think we all just learned a lot about the Giant in the Park community's views on balance.
The Metamixing ability is only broken depending the metamagic choices. Feats like Echospell, Dazing Spell, Rime Spell (on certain builds), Intensify Spell, and Persistent Spell are some of the best Metamagic feats outside of the Core Rule Book. Inside the CRB, you've got Heighten, Maximize, Quicken and Extend that are good.
Some of the feats are only good on certain builds, or certain classes (like Rime or Intensify) while others, like Dazing or Persistent are very powerful, but also come with a high spell level increase.
Sure, there are 2 traits that can reduce metamagic cost by 1 level for a single spell, but one of those traits is limited to a spell of 3rd level or lower. Spell Perfection lets you add one spell for free, but it's also a 15th level feat.
Most Metamagic Feats are only used as rods, because increasing a Fireball to 6th level usually isn't worth the cost, unless you can really pump the effects into that Fireball.
As it stands, the Arcanist can add 1 metamagic feat on the fly, this is true, but it still consumes a higher level spell slot. So Quickening a Fireball still needs a 7th level slot, they just don't have to prepare the Quickened Fireball in advance.
Honestly? That's how I wished Metamagic worked in the first place. A lot of the effects of Metamagic are situational and it's one of those, "Man I wish I had prepared a Heightened XXX today" where as the Arcanist is more like, "Crap, we need a Heightened XXX, wait, I can spend an Resevoir Point to cast it now!"
Keep in mind that the Reservoir is emptied, and then partially refilled each day when the Arcanist rests. For example, a 10th level Arcanist has a maximum Resevoir of 30 points, but each day, the previous pool of points is lost, and he regains 6 points (1+1/2 level). So unless the Arcanist starts siphoning his own spells, or consuming magic items, he's not going to have a very big pool to play with each day.
remember, if you want to make use of those neat features Arcanists gets, you have to raise charisma too.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of that. I've never liked things that veer towards madness, be it caster or martial. It also makes one of the weaker aspects of the class even weaker.
Then I come here and you guys are still saying it is overpowered. I literally cannot understand how people can be saying this. I was overwhelmed by the notion.Permit me to try and aid in your comprehension:
When you're playing/observing a wizard or sorcerer in a campaign, how many spells do they typically expend on a given challenge? Combat, yes, but also, say, puzzles, or social situations, information gathering, the like. How many spells do they burn through?
I play wizard from time to time and I usually cast every spell I ready and most of the ones I leave open to ready later. I also craft lots of pearls of power to get the kind of functionality the Arcanist is going to get for all my MANY lower level spells (I feel as though I swim and drown in all the vast wealth of spells and I can essentially cast them all I want!).
What is your point?
Then I come here and you guys are still saying it is overpowered. I literally cannot understand how people can be saying this. I was overwhelmed by the notion.Permit me to try and aid in your comprehension:
When you're playing/observing a wizard or sorcerer in a campaign, how many spells do they typically expend on a given challenge? Combat, yes, but also, say, puzzles, or social situations, information gathering, the like. How many spells do they burn through?
I play wizard from time to time and I usually cast every spell I ready and most of the ones I leave open to ready later. I also craft lots of pearls of power to get the kind of functionality the Arcanist is going to get for all my MANY lower level spells (I feel as though I swim and drown in all the vast wealth of spells and I can essentially cast them all I want!).
What is your point?
I wasn't making a point yet, I was seeking out information to understand your position.
See, when I'm playing a wizard or a sorcerer and I use magic to solve encounters my average number of spells cast per issue is...one.
Just one.
Sometimes if enemies are sufficiently spread or I'm low enough level I'll go down to two, but a resource-minded mage will go to bed with spells still memorized by the time the martial types are out of hit points. This is the paradigm I'm used to, the type of play I normally see, where people depict Int and Wis-based casters as being skilled in resource management and practiced in the tactical applications of magical power.
If you burn through spells faster of course you're going to see Arcanist as weaker, but from my end of things Arcanist is insane. Added bonus: since they're Int-reliant no one gets to complain that using my resources intelligently is out of character.
remember, if you want to make use of those neat features Arcanists gets, you have to raise charisma too.Personally, I'm not a big fan of that. I've never liked things that veer towards madness, be it caster or martial. It also makes one of the weaker aspects of the class even weaker.
I don't mind it as without their arcane reserve, they're not really overshadowing the Sorcerer and Wizard would they?
I don't mind it as without their arcane reserve, they're not really overshadowing the Sorcerer and Wizard would they?remember, if you want to make use of those neat features Arcanists gets, you have to raise charisma too.Personally, I'm not a big fan of that. I've never liked things that veer towards madness, be it caster or martial. It also makes one of the weaker aspects of the class even weaker.
10 foot pole. I'm trying my best to avoid stepping on those landmines.
The potential is powerful with just spell casting alone yes. I also think the whole 'hack spells' gig is pretty attractive and could be turned into all sorts of things. Bit let down by the blaster type things because those are a little on the weak side of things without a rider.
Then I come here and you guys are still saying it is overpowered. I literally cannot understand how people can be saying this. I was overwhelmed by the notion.Permit me to try and aid in your comprehension:
When you're playing/observing a wizard or sorcerer in a campaign, how many spells do they typically expend on a given challenge? Combat, yes, but also, say, puzzles, or social situations, information gathering, the like. How many spells do they burn through?
I play wizard from time to time and I usually cast every spell I ready and most of the ones I leave open to ready later. I also craft lots of pearls of power to get the kind of functionality the Arcanist is going to get for all my MANY lower level spells (I feel as though I swim and drown in all the vast wealth of spells and I can essentially cast them all I want!).
What is your point?
I wasn't making a point yet, I was seeking out information to understand your position.
See, when I'm playing a wizard or a sorcerer and I use magic to solve encounters my average number of spells cast per issue is...one.
Just one.
Sometimes if enemies are sufficiently spread or I'm low enough level I'll go down to two, but a resource-minded mage will go to bed with spells still memorized by the time the martial types are out of hit points. This is the paradigm I'm used to, the type of play I normally see, where people depict Int and Wis-based casters as being skilled in resource management and practiced in the tactical applications of magical power.
If you burn through spells faster of course you're going to see Arcanist as weaker, but from my end of things Arcanist is insane. Added bonus: since they're Int-reliant no one gets to complain that using my resources intelligently is out of character.
Hey. I like playing resource management classes. But you seem to think that variety of spells is important too (and it is), and on any given day the sorcerer will have access to more spells and so will the wizard.
And the arcanist will have FEWER spells. You are wrong if you think the arcanist is the more powerful class here. It trades away the wizards already somewhat anemic spells per day and gets the ability to allocate resources a little differently.
Also: You would be using more spells if you had more spells!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I come here and you guys are still saying it is overpowered. I literally cannot understand how people can be saying this. I was overwhelmed by the notion.Permit me to try and aid in your comprehension:
When you're playing/observing a wizard or sorcerer in a campaign, how many spells do they typically expend on a given challenge? Combat, yes, but also, say, puzzles, or social situations, information gathering, the like. How many spells do they burn through?
I play wizard from time to time and I usually cast every spell I ready and most of the ones I leave open to ready later. I also craft lots of pearls of power to get the kind of functionality the Arcanist is going to get for all my MANY lower level spells (I feel as though I swim and drown in all the vast wealth of spells and I can essentially cast them all I want!).
What is your point?
I wasn't making a point yet, I was seeking out information to understand your position.
See, when I'm playing a wizard or a sorcerer and I use magic to solve encounters my average number of spells cast per issue is...one.
Just one.
Sometimes if enemies are sufficiently spread or I'm low enough level I'll go down to two, but a resource-minded mage will go to bed with spells still memorized by the time the martial types are out of hit points. This is the paradigm I'm used to, the type of play I normally see, where people depict Int and Wis-based casters as being skilled in resource management and practiced in the tactical applications of magical power.
If you burn through spells faster of course you're going to see Arcanist as weaker, but from my end of things Arcanist is insane. Added bonus: since they're Int-reliant no one gets to complain that using my resources intelligently is out of character.
The average combat lasts 4 rounds. What do you do with the other three?
The average combat lasts 4 rounds. What do you do with the other three?Then I come here and you guys are still saying it is overpowered. I literally cannot understand how people can be saying this. I was overwhelmed by the notion.Permit me to try and aid in your comprehension:
When you're playing/observing a wizard or sorcerer in a campaign, how many spells do they typically expend on a given challenge? Combat, yes, but also, say, puzzles, or social situations, information gathering, the like. How many spells do they burn through?
I play wizard from time to time and I usually cast every spell I ready and most of the ones I leave open to ready later. I also craft lots of pearls of power to get the kind of functionality the Arcanist is going to get for all my MANY lower level spells (I feel as though I swim and drown in all the vast wealth of spells and I can essentially cast them all I want!).
What is your point?
I wasn't making a point yet, I was seeking out information to understand your position.
See, when I'm playing a wizard or a sorcerer and I use magic to solve encounters my average number of spells cast per issue is...one.
Just one.
Sometimes if enemies are sufficiently spread or I'm low enough level I'll go down to two, but a resource-minded mage will go to bed with spells still memorized by the time the martial types are out of hit points. This is the paradigm I'm used to, the type of play I normally see, where people depict Int and Wis-based casters as being skilled in resource management and practiced in the tactical applications of magical power.
If you burn through spells faster of course you're going to see Arcanist as weaker, but from my end of things Arcanist is insane. Added bonus: since they're Int-reliant no one gets to complain that using my resources intelligently is out of character.
Coup de grace helpless enemies (at low levels), or bask in the glory of my one-round combat (at levels 7 and higher). I also do a side business in researching the next encounter with divination while melee mops up.
What might be an elegant fix for the casting is to prevent them from gaining extra spells per day from a high Int bonus. Bump them back up to the previous spells per day progression in that case.
I haven't run the math on it but I believe that puts them still at less spells per day than the Wizard, and FAR less than the Sorcerer.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WOW! That seems immensely powerful! Just at a glance, I think some of the Arcane Exploits could benefit from a "minimum level to accept" in the same way as those used with an Alchemist's Discovery mechanic or a Gunslinger's Deed mechanic. Other than that though, I like this new direction!
I much prefer this flavour to the previous version. If I can find some more society games to play in, I'll give one a go. Which brings me to a question: how will Society games handle a character that can use up the potions that litter the scenarios to fuel his pool?
Coup de grace helpless enemies (at low levels), or bask in the glory of my one-round combat (at levels 7 and higher). I also do a side business in researching the next encounter with divination while melee mops up.
Seems like your party could benefit from you playing sorcerer so you can cast an instant kill and a summon monster twice a fight.
Coup de grace helpless enemies (at low levels), or bask in the glory of my one-round combat (at levels 7 and higher). I also do a side business in researching the next encounter with divination while melee mops up.Seems like your party could benefit from you playing sorcerer so you can cast an instant kill and a summon monster twice a fight.
That's, ah, not what I meant. What I meant was that at level 7+ if I bother casting a spell the encounter is over. It might not be formally over - creatures are probably still technically alive - but it's over except for the crying.
I've never really been attracted to Sorcerers. Oddly enough I do a lot of trial-and-error for my campaign spell selection, which makes Wizard's ability to know any number of spells very attractive to me. And since I barely need to cast any spells except when throwing down with fellow spellcasters the slightly lessened spells-per-day don't affect me. If I played a Sorcerer, assuming I managed to pick spells I was happy with, the only difference would be going to sleep with even more spells left over.