|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...stuff...
I think that your perception of spellcasters is skewed by your GM's leniency. If APL CR combats in my game had the wizard twiddling his thumbs 3/4 of the time there would be a problem.
I have a Wizard AND a Sorcerer in my group of players, and they usually spend more than one spell a combat. They aren't dumb players, they just need to contribute meaningfully to the challenges at play.
This means that at levels 5+ on an average day of adventuring (5 encounters) they are going to be low on spells.
The Arcanist is going to face some real problems when it comes to meaningfully contributing to combat every round.
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 thought the same thing, actually. Level restricted abilities have a precedent already with class features that let you pick multiple options(discoveries, revelations...).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I dun like the whole x/day = balance gig. Really varies with your party. Can also quickly turn boring if you run out of spells. Well... Time to shoot the crossbow for almost nothing.
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.
All I am hearing is that you think Arcanist would be better for your particular idiosyncratic play style (and I don't see how that is true given that every spell you ready supposedly ends every fight you are in). Frankly, I usually build Batman wizards and this would be much worse for that play style.
All I am hearing is that you think Arcanist would be better for your particular idiosyncratic play style (and I don't see how that is true given that every spell you ready supposedly ends every fight you are in). Frankly, I usually build Batman wizards and this would be much worse for that play style.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.
Well of course. Batman wants buff and control, both of which sorta require re-application in the absence of a prepared battlefield (not always doable) or Persistent Spell. I tend to prefer solutions I can carry around with me into the next encounter when I'm done. Nothing like popping a divination while your summoned monsters are mopping up an encounter and then teleporting into an enemy while the summons are still up.
All I am hearing is that you think Arcanist would be better for your particular idiosyncratic play style (and I don't see how that is true given that every spell you ready supposedly ends every fight you are in). Frankly, I usually build Batman wizards and this would be much worse for that play style.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.
That is a crazy level of wizardry if hes ending encounters with a single spell. Wow.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Really like the new mechanics and concept of the new arcanist. It's the first of the ACG classes that I can't wait to play.
I do think that the spell tinkerer exploit needs to have a check to affect a spell - though one that allies could choose to allow perhaps. Doesn't seem right that you can mess with enemy spells that aren't targeting them at will such as walls of fire, created pits, etc.
Also, if you choose to suppress a spell with this, can you choose to suppress it for fewer rounds than your charisma modifier? It would be really useful to suppress a spell like wall of fire or wall of force for 1 round, cross it's area, then have it re-activate before your enemies pass through.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a crazy level of wizardry if hes ending encounters with a single spell. Wow.All I am hearing is that you think Arcanist would be better for your particular idiosyncratic play style (and I don't see how that is true given that every spell you ready supposedly ends every fight you are in). Frankly, I usually build Batman wizards and this would be much worse for that play style.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.
I cast color spray...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just had an idea about how to fix the flavor problem. Ditch the spellbook. Remove their ability to learn from scrolls.
Instead, Arcanists represent rare individuals to whom arcane magic "sticks". They have an aura of crackling, swirling spell energy that constantly surrounds them. They study magic not through formulas and books, but by learning to tamper with their aura directly. They prepare their spells for the day by taking individual spells in their aura and "grabbing" them, becoming able to control when and how the energy is released.
They add two spells of a level they can cast to their aura each time they gain a level. When they are affected by an arcane spell they don't know (even if they succeed on their saving throw for the spell), they add the spell to their aura if they succeed at a will save with a DC equal to 15 + twice the spell's unmodified level.
You can also add an option for arcanists to craft "spell crystals" that other arcanists can use to add the spell to their aura.
Thoughts?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're the only one so far who thinks there's a "flavor problem".
Though I'll admit, having a Blue Mage in Pathfinder would be pretty damn cool.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just had an idea about how to fix the flavor problem. Ditch the spellbook. Remove their ability to learn from scrolls.
Instead, Arcanists represent rare individuals to whom arcane magic "sticks". They have an aura of crackling, swirling spell energy that constantly surrounds them. They study magic not through formulas and books, but by learning to tamper with their aura directly. They prepare their spells for the day by taking individual spells in their aura and "grabbing" them, becoming able to control when and how the energy is released.
They add two spells of a level they can cast to their aura each time they gain a level. When they are affected by an arcane spell they don't know (even if they succeed on their saving throw for the spell), they add the spell to their aura if they succeed at a will save with a DC equal to 15 + twice the spell's unmodified level.
You can also add an option for arcanists to craft "spell crystals" that other arcanists can use to add the spell to their aura.
Thoughts?
That'd make learning offensive spells pretty brutal outside of the ones you get from leveling up. The first thought that popped into my head was paying a Wizard to cast stuff at you to learn spells.
|
That'd make learning offensive spells pretty brutal outside of the ones you get from leveling up. The first thought that popped into my head was paying a Wizard to cast stuff at you to learn spells.
Alright Wizard, I want you to toss a Fireball at me so I can add it to my aura. Got it? Alright... HIT ME!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That'd make learning offensive spells pretty brutal outside of the ones you get from leveling up. The first thought that popped into my head was paying a Wizard to cast stuff at you to learn spells.Alright Wizard, I want you to toss a Fireball at me so I can add it to my aura. Got it? Alright... HIT ME!
Read that again and tell me - is that not The Best Thing Ever? Because I'd play that character. Admittedly I'd play that as a high-Cha abysmal Wis character with severe mental damage and a death wish but I'd still play that character and it would be funny, and it would be terrifying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
...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.
From your end of things, the Arcanist seems extremely weak. If I only had to cast a single spell to solve any problem, I'd FAR prefer to be playing a Wizard where I could have, for example in the level 8 comparison earlier, 4 different problems accounted for at my highest spell level. While in contrast the Arcanist can "solve" the same problem, 3 times. Keeping in mind the Wizard can choose to leave 1 or 2 of these utility "problem solvers" available for when the problem arises, while maintaining 2 combat "problem solvers" at the ready. While the Arcanist lacks this luxury with its single, earth shattering spell prepared.
I really like the new playtest version of the Arcanist, I found when trying to build the older version, on paper my character felt bland. The customizable talent options are a really fun addition.
That'd make learning offensive spells pretty brutal outside of the ones you get from leveling up. The first thought that popped into my head was paying a Wizard to cast stuff at you to learn spells.
Note the spell crystals option. You can find them as treasure or buy them, though I imagine they'd be harder to find than scrolls if arcanists are supposed to be rare.
Anyway the important part is that it makes them visually and conceptually distinct from a wizard: I'm imagining the arcanist's aura becoming more and more visual as they gain more power. At level 20, unless they take effort to suppress it, their aura swirls with eldritch colors like tornado-force winds and glows brighter than the sun.
That'd make learning offensive spells pretty brutal outside of the ones you get from leveling up. The first thought that popped into my head was paying a Wizard to cast stuff at you to learn spells.
It might make for an interesting archetype. Learning save-or-die spells would be pretty risky though.
|
|
It's pretty clearly written: if you can see it and it's within 10ft per level, you can go there.
Alright, thank you.
So that doesn't kill my character concept.
CN Elf Arcanist 5
STR: 8 , DEX: 16 , CON: 10, INT: 18, WIS: 12, CHA: 16
HP: 38
Initiative: +9
AC: 13
FORT: +3
WILL: +5
REF: +4
-------------------------------
Role: Infiltrator
Arcane Reservoir Maximum: 15
Arcane Reservoir Points Gained each Day: 3
Arcane Exploits: Consume Magic Items, Dimensional Slide (10 squares / 50 feet), Spell Tinkerer
-------------------------------
Racial Traits: Elven Immunities, Envoy, Fleet-Footed (+2 Initiative)
Skills: Appraise +12, Knowledge (Arcana)+12, Knowledge (Local) +12, Knowledge (Nobility) +12, Linguistics +12, Spellcraft +12
Traits: Gifted Adept (Invisibility), Warrior of Old (+2 Initiative)
Feats: Nimble Moves, Acrobatic Step, Run
Gear: Bag of Holding, Headband of Alluring Charisma
-------------------------------
Cantrip Prepared Spells: Dancing Lights, Daze, Detect Magic, Ghost Sounds, Mage Hand, Open/Close
1st Level Prepared Spells: Detect Secret Doors, Expeditious Retreat, Hypnotism, Unseen Servant
2nd Level Prepared Spells: Blur, Invisibility
-------------------------------
1st-5th Level Favored Class: +1 HP
Motivations: The Scoundrel uses his magics to infiltrate places, to avoid unwanted attention, and to steal objects worth value.
I cast color spray...That is a crazy level of wizardry if hes ending encounters with a single spell. Wow.All I am hearing is that you think Arcanist would be better for your particular idiosyncratic play style (and I don't see how that is true given that every spell you ready supposedly ends every fight you are in). Frankly, I usually build Batman wizards and this would be much worse for that play style.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.
Color Spray doesn't end encounters at level 7.
I want to know what these "1 spell encounter enders" are that he's casting, because I haven't seen anything that so enormously affects the outcome of an encounter (barring low-low levels like Sleep) that he is constantly getting away with casting a single spell for every problem and that's it.
I think the Warpriest is breathing a sigh of relief right now that there's a class that's more incendiary out there.
I will say I lie Cheese' idea but man learning spells like Disintegrate and Finger of Death would be interesting.
Yeah I know, "spell crystals" but think about it...for an Arcanist to have crafted one he had to have known the spell, right? So how did he learn it...I can just imagine he had his Cleric buddy on hand ready to cast Breath of Life or Resurrection at a moment's notice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The first thought that popped into my head was paying a Wizard to cast stuff at you to learn spells."So, wait. You want to pay me..."
"Yup."
"To cast a bunch of spells..."
"Yup."
"To set you on fire, encase you in ice, then bury you miles underground?"
"Yup!"
Somewhere out there a black mage is cheering with great joy at this idea...
I will say I lie Cheese' idea but man learning spells like Disintegrate and Finger of Death would be interesting.
Yeah I know, "spell crystals" but think about it...for an Arcanist to have crafted one he had to have known the spell, right? So how did he learn it...I can just imagine he had his Cleric buddy on hand ready to cast Breath of Life or Resurrection at a moment's notice.
AHA SO BREATH OF LIFE DOES BRING BACK DISINTEGRATED FOLKS! Ah hehe just kidding.
I love the idea too, but it'd end with too many Arcanists getting obliterated at high levels heh.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This revision just came out for playtesting. So that the devs could get some feedback on what might need to be changed or revised. Tonight.
Hello, Sky? This is Chicken Little. You're not really falling. Let's give the process a bit of a chance to work; this is all still early days yet.
Color Spray doesn't end encounters at level 7.
I want to know what these "1 spell encounter enders" are that he's casting, because I haven't seen anything that so enormously affects the outcome of an encounter (barring low-low levels like Sleep) that he is constantly getting away with casting a single spell for every...
The Complete Professor Q's Guide to Wizards goes over these concepts pretty well, and goes over most of the wizard options that have been published for PF. I don't agree with all of his assessments, but I'd say it's a must-read for anyone who wants to play a wizard in PF, even if they don't want to go full Batman.
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.
It's referring to the table for the first draft of the class in the Playtest document. Per Jason Bulmahn, spells prepared hasn't changed for the revision.
AHA SO BREATH OF LIFE DOES BRING BACK DISINTEGRATED FOLKS!
*Glares murderously*
Darn that thread. Darn it to heck.
You know what? Reading through these rules again, I am now mad about all the MAD too. I mean: I either have to give up int at some point or those saves on my class powers are going to fall behind.
Maybe the Arcanist could benefit from charisma some other way? (like start the day with a number of those arcane points equal to her charisma modifier).
AHA SO BREATH OF LIFE DOES BRING BACK DISINTEGRATED FOLKS!*Glares murderously*
Darn that thread. Darn it to heck.
I knew you believed it deep down. Muahahhaaha.
The Complete Professor Q's Guide to Wizards goes over these concepts pretty well, and goes over most of the wizard options that have been published for PF. I don't agree with all of his assessments, but I'd say it's a must-read for anyone who wants to play a wizard in PF, even if they don't want to go full Batman.Color Spray doesn't end encounters at level 7.
I want to know what these "1 spell encounter enders" are that he's casting, because I haven't seen anything that so enormously affects the outcome of an encounter (barring low-low levels like Sleep) that he is constantly getting away with casting a single spell for every...
I've read that guide and I have it downloaded too. I use some of the spells in there, but none of the spells are so powerful as to only need to cast 1 spell in an encounter and then you're done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, three things:
1) Counter Drain looks stupidly powerful because it doesn't require the use of the Counterspell ability to pull off, just that the spell is countered. That means you can expend slots for lower-level spells and Dispel Magic for everything level 3 and up, then get pool points back for it. You might even be able to use a Necklace of Netted Stars or something similar to keep the 3rd level spell slots open, unless someone adds the note that you have to be the one to dispel the spell, not any item or other source attached to you. Those pool points can then be used to cast the various elemental exploits which are all more powerful than any 0-2nd level spell. On that note...
2) There's no casting time listed for the elemental exploits (Acid Jet, Flame Arc, Ice Missile, Lightning Lance). Logically they're a Standard action, but it would be nice to have it written out in case they're actually Swift actions or something.
3) Are the DCs for the exploits actually supposed to be Charisma-based, or is that a typo?
Just had an idea about how to fix the flavor problem. Ditch the spellbook. Remove their ability to learn from scrolls.
Instead, Arcanists represent rare individuals to whom arcane magic "sticks". They have an aura of crackling, swirling spell energy that constantly surrounds them. They study magic not through formulas and books, but by learning to tamper with their aura directly. They prepare their spells for the day by taking individual spells in their aura and "grabbing" them, becoming able to control when and how the energy is released...
Thoughts?
I like it; this is more in line with the idea I have had in my head for a "spellhacker" certainly.
That said, I think this revision comes pretty close, so I'm happy to see what direction it goes from here as well.
I like it quite a bit. I'd still prefer to play non-magical characters, but since I need magic to compete, it's nice to have one more cool spellcaster to have as an option. I do like the concept of a "spellhacker" and while I wish this was, well, a little bit more like that concept, it's still pretty cool and far more interesting than wizard and sorcerer (I've never liked bloodlines, and I tend to hate prepared casting).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ JRutterbush: Thank you. Yeah I can defiantly see Spell Tinkerer getting nerfed, its strong and feels like in its current state as an auto-include just because of how good it is.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I really want to see an archetype or class based on the sheer hilarity, fun, and weirdness off of this cool idea we all have.
Just had an idea about how to fix the flavor problem. Ditch the spellbook. Remove their ability to learn from scrolls.
Instead, Arcanists represent rare individuals to whom arcane magic "sticks". They have an aura of crackling, swirling spell energy that constantly surrounds them. They study magic not through formulas and books, but by learning to tamper with their aura directly. They prepare their spells for the day by taking individual spells in their aura and "grabbing" them, becoming able to control when and how the energy is released.
They add two spells of a level they can cast to their aura each time they gain a level. When they are affected by an arcane spell they don't know (even if they succeed on their saving throw for the spell), they add the spell to their aura if they succeed at a will save with a DC equal to 15 + twice the spell's unmodified level.
You can also add an option for arcanists to craft "spell crystals" that other arcanists can use to add the spell to their aura.
Thoughts?
I think you're the only one so far who thinks there's a "flavor problem".
Though I'll admit, having a Blue Mage in Pathfinder would be pretty damn cool.
That'd make learning offensive spells pretty brutal outside of the ones you get from leveling up. The first thought that popped into my head was paying a Wizard to cast stuff at you to learn spells.
Alright Wizard, I want you to toss a Fireball at me so I can add it to my aura. Got it? Alright... HIT ME!
Read that again and tell me - is that not The Best Thing Ever? Because I'd play that character. Admittedly I'd play that as a high-Cha abysmal Wis character with severe mental damage and a death wish but I'd still play that character and it would be funny, and it would be terrifying.
"So, wait. You want to pay me..."
"Yup."
"To cast a bunch of spells..."
"Yup."
"To set you on fire, encase you in ice, then bury you miles underground?"
"Yup!"I love it.
I've really been hoping to see a talent (exploit now, I guess) that lets you spend an arcane point when you're affected by a spell to replace one of your spells prepared with that spell. So if I get hit with Scorching Ray, I can spend an arcane point to drop my prepared Knock and have Scorching Ray prepared in its place.
Maybe even an advanced exploit to let you prep non-Arcanist spells at a level higher. You couldn't write them into your spellbook, of course, and maybe they un-prepare themselves the next time you prepare spells/recover spell slots.
Still, some blue-mage style effects would be pretty fun, even if they're only temporary.
It might make for an interesting archetype. Learning save-or-die spells would be pretty risky though.
I will say I lie Cheese' idea but man learning spells like Disintegrate and Finger of Death would be interesting.
Yeah I know, "spell crystals" but think about it...for an Arcanist to have crafted one he had to have known the spell, right? So how did he learn it...I can just imagine he had his Cleric buddy on hand ready to cast Breath of Life or Resurrection at a moment's notice.]
Somewhere out there a black mage is cheering with great joy at this idea...AHA SO BREATH OF LIFE DOES BRING BACK DISINTEGRATED FOLKS! Ah hehe just kidding.
I love the idea too, but it'd end with too many Arcanists getting obliterated at high levels heh.
1) Counter Drain looks stupidly powerful because it doesn't require the use of the Counterspell ability to pull off, just that the spell is countered. That means you can expend slots for lower-level spells and Dispel Magic for everything level 3 and up, then get pool points back for it. You might even be able to use a Necklace of Netted Stars or something similar to keep the 3rd level spell slots open, unless someone adds the note that you have to be the one to dispel the spell, not any item or other source attached to you. Those pool points can then be used to cast the various elemental exploits which are all more powerful than any 0-2nd level spell. On that note...
Except if you're not using the counterspell exploit you have to use readied actions to counterspell, which means you sacrifice your standard action for the turn. If you're in a one-on-one duel with another spellcaster this could work (so long as you keep succeeding at your checks, and you're screwed if they do something besides cast a spell), but it's otherwise not a very smart idea.
Okay, three things:
2) There's no casting time listed for the elemental exploits (Acid Jet, Flame Arc, Ice Missile, Lightning Lance). Logically they're a Standard action, but it would be nice to have it written out in case they're actually Swift actions or something.
All Supernatural abilities have a cast time of a standard action unless otherwise noted. Jason popped into the thread earlier to point that out.
Use Special Ability
Using a special ability is usually a standard action, but whether it is a standard action, a full-round action, or not an action at all is defined by the ability.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Using a spell-like ability works like casting a spell in that it requires concentration and provokes attacks of opportunity. Spell-like abilities can be disrupted. If your concentration is broken, the attempt to use the ability fails, but the attempt counts as if you had used the ability. The casting time of a spell-like ability is 1 standard action, unless the ability description notes otherwise.
Using a Spell-Like Ability on the Defensive: You may attempt to use a spell-like ability on the defensive, just as with casting a spell. If the concentration check (DC 15 + double the spell's level) fails, you can't use the ability, but the attempt counts as if you had used the ability.
Supernatural Abilities (Su): Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability's description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Extraordinary Abilities (Ex): Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are usually standard actions that cannot be disrupted, do not require concentration, and do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
You know what? Reading through these rules again, I am now mad about all the MAD too. I mean: I either have to give up int at some point or those saves on my class powers are going to fall behind.
Maybe the Arcanist could benefit from charisma some other way? (like start the day with a number of those arcane points equal to her charisma modifier).
It's two scores. How do people consider that MAD? Just because the Wizard and Sorcerer only need one score each doesn't mean that's the way all classes should be... the single-stat dependency is one of the main reasons people think spellcasters are so powerful.
The Monk and Paladin are MAD. They each require 4+ ability scores to be good at what they do. Even the Fighter is more MAD than the Arcanist, requiring three ability scores. It's not gonna ruin your character if you have to put a 16 in Intelligence and Charisma instead of an 18 in Intelligence and 12's in everything else. It's really not, I promise.
(Oh, and all that is completely ignoring the fact that you can still tank Charisma as long as you don't take the energy blasty exploits. There are plenty of exploits that don't require Charisma at all.)
And Dex for defense and Con to not die instantaneously with a d6 hit die.
The thing with the charisma saves is this though: what allows this class to still succeed is that the blast spells let the arcanist ready more interesting utility spells and does not have to worry about doing just damage. However, the charisma saves make this damage really unreliable.
Let's say someone goes crazy and starts the game with 16 charisma and 16 int. To get the extra spells to power the blasts, it only makes sense to put level up bonuses into intelligence and probably drop less money on buffing charisma (let's say by level 16, charisma is buffed up to 20 whereas intelligence goes to 26, 4 from level bonuses and 6 from enhancement bonuses).
So the saves on the blasts are then 3 points behind saves of spells (15% higher chance of avoidance). Meanwhile, someone who could have built 18 intelligence would see a 20% better chance of their spells succeeding.
Splitting the save statistic just does not scale well at all.
1. The DM has no idea how to build encounters, and he's one-spelling the single big, beefy low-Will enemies that make up each combat.
To be fair, this is how, like, 99% of the encounters in Paizo APs go. You can nullify BC and debuffing tactics to an extent with encounter design but it can quickly make encounters kinda stale, as most monsters have at least one spell that can just completely shut them down, and most of the good BC spells are AoE. If you don't want to deal with that, then be prepared to fight lots and lots of golems wearing permanent antimagic fields...
1. The DM has no idea how to build encounters, and he's one-spelling the single big, beefy low-Will enemies that make up each combat.To be fair, this is how, like, 99% of the encounters in Paizo APs go. You can nullify BC and debuffing tactics to an extent with encounter design but it can quickly make encounters kinda stale, as most monsters have at least one spell that can just completely shut them down, and most of the good BC spells are AoE. If you don't want to deal with that, then be prepared to fight lots and lots of golems wearing permanent antimagic fields...
Pretty much this. Know thine enemy, and react accordingly.
...Admittedly I do spend a lot of money on scrolls and wands.
This seems like a hilarious caster to blast with.
Human with Spell Specialization (Magic Missile)
Spend arcane pool points into potent magic to drop 5th level magic missiles at level one.
Except if you're not using the counterspell exploit you have to use readied actions to counterspell, which means you sacrifice your standard action for the turn. If you're in a one-on-one duel with another spellcaster this could work (so long as you keep succeeding at your checks, and you're screwed if they do something besides cast a spell), but it's otherwise not a very smart idea.
You still have to know when a spell is coming and ready an action to counter it if you're not using the Counterspell exploit. Readying to counter doesn't happen often as it is, so if this increases the amount of that happening, I'm okay with it.
Ah yes, that's true. I forgot counterspelling took effort to do normally, which shows just how often I remember to use it. That still doesn't answer the second part though, regarding items. Common sense dictates that it shouldn't work, but I know plenty of people who like to take very "liberal" readings of abilities and that looks like a very vulnerable point of attack. That's more something I'd just like clarified in the final version though.
1) Counter Drain looks stupidly powerful because it doesn't require the use of the Counterspell ability to pull off, just that the spell is countered. That means you can expend slots for lower-level spells and Dispel Magic for everything level 3 and up, then get pool points back for it. You might even be able to use a Necklace of Netted Stars or something similar to keep the 3rd level spell slots open, unless someone adds the note that you have to be the one to dispel the spell, not any item or other source attached to you. Those pool points can then be used to cast the various elemental exploits which are all more powerful than any 0-2nd level spell. On that note...Except if you're not using the counterspell exploit you have to use readied actions to counterspell, which means you sacrifice your standard action for the turn. If you're in a one-on-one duel with another spellcaster this could work (so long as you keep succeeding at your checks, and you're screwed if they do something besides cast a spell), but it's otherwise not a very smart idea.
Just being able to attempt a counterspell without prepping an action is pretty huge. I mean, its still a tough check using dismag as the basis, and you don't get the auto counter that using the identical spell would normally provide, but still. This is super duper ultra good IMO.
Possibly overpowered.
I can't really say without playtesting it specifically, but so far I like the new arcanist. Reminds me a bit of the Archmage PrC from back in the day with its blasty tricks and its sexy counterspell.
I think that the 4 spell limit on casting is going to be pretty rough, but you get a much better shot at having the right spell rather than more spells... so that is about even.
My interest is way up. At least this iteration has a concept behind it.
And Dex for defense and Con to not die instantaneously with a d6 hit die.You know what? Reading through these rules again, I am now mad about all the MAD too. I mean: I either have to give up int at some point or those saves on my class powers are going to fall behind.
Maybe the Arcanist could benefit from charisma some other way? (like start the day with a number of those arcane points equal to her charisma modifier).
It's two scores. How do people consider that MAD? Just because the Wizard and Sorcerer only need one score each doesn't mean that's the way all classes should be... the single-stat dependency is one of the main reasons people think spellcasters are so powerful.
The Monk and Paladin are MAD. They each require 4+ ability scores to be good at what they do. Even the Fighter is more MAD than the Arcanist, requiring three ability scores. It's not gonna ruin your character if you have to put a 16 in Intelligence and Charisma instead of an 18 in Intelligence and 12's in everything else. It's really not, I promise.
(Oh, and all that is completely ignoring the fact that you can still tank Charisma as long as you don't take the energy blasty exploits. There are plenty of exploits that don't require Charisma at all.)
Those aren't required ability scores. For one, as a mage, you're back-row. You're not meant to get into melee like Fighters or other classes that require defense or HP. Two, you have defenses: Mage Armor, Shield, Blur, Displacement, Mirror Image. Arcane spells are full of defensive options. You can easily tank Dexterity and Constitution and still have a solid character. Even if you insist on buffing Dexterity or Constitution, that still only puts you at the level of MAD that almost every single other class in the game has. And, again, that was your choice, since concentrating on only two abilities is perfectly valid for a full spellcaster.
The...
Half your level in d6 IS losing out on blasting. Having that being 20% easier to avoid than equivalent blasting powers is like not having a blasting option.