What do you have against experienced players? What you propose would basically make the class unplayable to everyone not just experienced players. Three prohibited schools with no tradeoff? What exactly do you think is overpowered? The Arcanist already has less spells per day than Specialist Wizards and Sorcerers and you want to further reduce their spells?
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.
No, that's just you and a few other people. Most of us want to live in peace with the rest of the internet. Prince of Knives may have arrived with a gigantic chip on his shoulder, but in the last week that chip has been chiseled off pretty nicely and he contributes regularly incisive and good analysis, without all that "I'm gonna rage now!" stuff he did in the first two days. Give the guy a break.
How does restricting three schools make things easier for new players?
The theory is that the Arcanist would be a more flexible version of the sorcerer. The spells per day would be amped back up, but the flexibility would be limited.
(Edit: So ridiculously ninja'd...)
I disagree with this. I like.the Arcanist where it is. People will still go to the Sorcerer if the want a spell battery. The Wizard becomes the middle of the road option with more flexibility and some spells to spare at the end of the day. The Arcanist takes up the other wing with lots of flexibility but the least staying power. It becomes a good choice for new players who want to learn spells under a forgiving spell system, and really experienced players who can make the most efficient use of their spells. The Arcanist does best under a 1 or 2 battle adventuring day but fares the worst under an extended adventuring day. It's a powerful option, but it doesn't invalidate the other classes.
Jason has already reminded us once that the Arcanist is a class which panders to really experienced players who can make efficient use of its resources. Of course it's going to seem more powerful to the seasoned players on the forums. They're the target audience!
I think some of the clamor will die down when the play test results start coming in. So far we've been too busy talking about the revised Arcanist to actually go play test it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any class played by a more experienced player is going to produce a character that seems more "powerful" than a novice player with the same class.
This is because of said experience and system mastery.
It is what it is. This should not be used as a means to measure the power levels of a class.
(Edited to sound less like a direct 'Nyah' comeback, which was not my intent.)
Would this be a bad time to mention that I ran a game of We Be Goblins over the table after the dishes were cleared away last night? Much fun was had by all. We even had a non player who watched on horrified fascination as Vorka's kitchen was described. :D
The party actually managed to find and steal the fireworks without waking Vorka. I've never seen such a high set of stealth rolls before. Vorka failed every percentage die chance to wake up, and I gave her a few more than were called for by the module. I couldn't believe it.
That would happen with any existing class with resources to manage.
The more experienced player knows when to hold a reserve, and when to nova. Inexperinced players don't.
That this class offers more options in managing those resources isn't a detriment, but a blessing.
I disagree with this. I like.the Arcanist where it is. People will still go to the Sorcerer if the want a spell battery. The Wizard becomes the middle of the road option with more flexibility and some spells to spare at the end of the day. The Arcanist takes up the other wing with lots of flexibility but the least staying power. It becomes a good choice for new players who want to learn spells under a forgiving spell system, and really experienced players who can make the most efficient use of their spells. The Arcanist does best under a 1 or 2 battle adventuring day but fares the worst under an extended adventuring day. It's a powerful option, but it doesn't invalidate the other classes.Jason has already reminded us once that the Arcanist is a class which panders to really experienced players who can make efficient use of its resources. Of course it's going to seem more powerful to the seasoned players on the forums. They're the target audience!
I think some of the clamor will die down when the play test results start coming in. So far we've been too busy talking about the revised Arcanist to actually go play test it.
Agreed....and nicely put ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a matter of fact, I did. Take the Sorcerer (which is not broken)
I think we've discerned the heart of our disagreement. I'd rather firmly place the 9-level casting classes in the 'broken' department, especially after Pathfinder went and gave them Real Class Features, which they were rather sorely not in need of.
|
My only concern is that some of the new features overcome the main limiting factor for the class. Running out of spells.
The sorcerer rarely runs out of useful spells, but often has to pass over "the" most useful spell.
The wizard may have "the" most useful spell, but he may only have it once per day.
The arcanist's limiting factor, it seems, is that it will likely run out of spells quickly.
Only with some of the new features, they have other things to do so they can save the spell slots to nova.
We'll see how it play tests.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Logic: How Schroedinger's Wizard dies...
I haven't had the chance to read over the whole thread, but if anyone has suggested it, I'm in the camp of perhaps limiting the number of spells prepared for the day rather than the amount you can cast in the day. Running out of spells stinks as a caster.
I feel like if you can only prepare two or three spells a day, you have less options than a Wizard or Sorc, while still having the option of customizing and specializing your spell list for upcoming challenges.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a matter of fact, I did. Take the Sorcerer (which is not broken)I think we've discerned the heart of our disagreement. I'd rather firmly place the 9-level casting classes in the 'broken' department, especially after Pathfinder went and gave them Real Class Features, which they were rather sorely not in need of.If you really think that half of the classes in Pathfinder are "broken", why are you here? Do you not know what "broken" actually means? Broken things don't work. If you truly believe that full casters are "broken", then why would you even try to play Pathfinder in the first place?
Yes, full casters are powerful. But that doesn't mean they're broken. I can build a character of any class that'll rival a full caster for power, and greatly exceed it in certain places (namely, whatever that class's niche is). Yes, in a single one-off encounter, full casters with all of their resources win (usually, though I have played characters - including one very fun pure Fighter - that could easily take out any spellcaster you could throw at them). But unless you're playing an arena game, that's not how this game works. If all you ever face are single one-off encounters with full rests in between, your GM needs some serious game-building advice.
Full casters are 'broken' because they have the unrivaled ability to fundamentally alter how the game is played. It can happen on purpose, and it can happen on accident, but however it happens there's always the chance that having someone with 9th-level casting in the party is going to change the tone and even genre of the story being told.
The power of full casters isn't in 'arenas', though they handle those quite competently. It's not in how much heat they're packing at the beginning of the day, either. Their power is in the ability to always, always, define an engagement on their own terms. The amount of effort you have to go through to catch a Wizard or Cleric by surprise is, frankly, insane - and then when you pull it off they can always run away, always retreat and take stock of the situation before returning to do battle or invalidate the problem in another way. Spells have a narrative power that no other subsystem comes close to matching, capable of handling puzzles, social situations, traps, obstacles, and combat with equal ease and very little effort.
Admittedly, it's Wizard/Cleric that are the god-kings of Being Batman, but it's not like Sorcerer or Druid are that far behind. The 'nerfs' given to spells were given to a few problem spells but not enough, not nearly enough, and not to the ones capable of annihilating a campaign premise and scatter its ashes across the ethereal void.
Joining in a little late on the conversation but I'll throw out my 2 copper on the matter anyways. Keep in mind this is just theory crafting right now and not actual play test data and I'll build one out for my next game for actual test data.
First, I LOVE the new direction of the class. The flavor and mechanics are pretty darn cool. Sorta reminds me of the Magi's Arcane Pool except it's more geared even more so towards magic, and their exploits remind me of a Witches Hexes. I think the reserve resetting each day to be a bit underwhelming, but I'll reserve judgment till play on that aspect of it.
Secondly tho, I really don't like their new spell progression rate and number of spell slots. They currently get less spells per day at each level than a universalist Wizard and have the spell progression of a Sorcerer. That will kill the class for a lot of people imo, especially when there is already elitist between Wizards and Sorcs in terms of spells(Since at ever odd level the Wizard just plain has more spells due to having access to the next level of spells).
But even compared to the Witch, this is weaker. If exploits are to Hexes then the Arcanist's "hexes" are weaker since they use a finite resource as opposed to limits per encounter. Yes the Arcanist's spell list is arguably stronger, but that doesn't matter so much at a certain level of play. Imo this is likely a knee jerk nerf to their other abilities but honestly I would like to see how it does with the old spell progression arcanists had.
Again just my 2 Copper. I'll build one of the new ones out later when JB gives us the go ahead to. As for the more recent issue of balance, I'm just comparing this to other full casters. Not gonna touch the whole martial vs Caster thing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Full casters are 'broken' because they have the unrivaled ability to fundamentally alter how the game is played. It can happen on purpose, and it can happen on accident, but however it happens there's always the chance that having someone with 9th-level casting in the party is going to change the tone and even genre of the story being told.
So the problem isn't with the class, nor the game, it's with the Fantasy genre?
If you view the wizard (parent class 1) as broken, and the sorcerer (parent class 2) as broken, how are you hoping to 'balance' the Arcanist? Because it sounds to me like your solution would be to not only cancel the entire class, but to rip a third of the classes available In Pathfinder out of the player manual. What are you hoping to accomplish here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evokers revel in the raw power of magic, and can use it to create and destroy with shocking ease.
Intense Spells (Su)
Whenever you cast an evocation spell that deals hit point damage, add 1/2 your wizard level to the damage (minimum +1). This bonus only applies once to a spell, not once per missile or ray, and cannot be split between multiple missiles or rays. This bonus damage is not increased by Empower Spell or similar effects. This damage is of the same type as the spell. At 20th level, whenever you cast an evocation spell you can roll twice to penetrate a creature's spell resistance and take the better result.
Force Missile (Sp)
As a standard action you can unleash a force missile that automatically strikes a foe, as magic missile. The force missile deals 1d4 points of damage plus the damage from your intense spells evocation power. This is a force effect. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Elemental Ray (Sp): Starting at 1st level, you can unleash an elemental ray as a standard action, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. This ray deals 1d6 points of damage of your energy type + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
Inferior spell-like abilities, fewer spells per day, and nothing that adds static bonuses to their spells and yet people are still calling Arcanist overpowered...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a fault of the system, it's a GM's job to keep a game to a certain tone and genre if that's what they want. The default tone and genre of Pathfinder is high-fantasy with magic and dragons and stuff. If you want a game that's not that, then it's up to you to make the tweaks needed to make that happen. You don't get to call the classes "broken" just because you want Paizo to cater their high-fantasy game to your tastes when they don't mesh with the game you're choosing to play.
If you don't want to play a game with high-fantasy full casters, then either play a game without full casters or play a different game.
But if you're gonna insist on playing Pathfinder, then you either accept that your game's setting includes powerful magic-wielders or you accept that you'll have to tweak the game to fit your world.
No, it rather is Paizo's fault, just as it was WotC's fault before them. Pathfinder is billed as a heroic fantasy game where the players take on the roles of the heroes - or villains - of a story that takes place in a fantastic world. Except that's not how it works, since a large portion of classes in both games can't do heroic things past a certain level. Just at the point when the demons and dragons and strange abominations from the Ethereal plane show up the 'mundanes'...don't change at all. They become reliant, then utterly dependent, on spellcaster support. Past a certain point one has to ask, "Why are the non-casters even here?"
That's a fundamental flaw in the system. Paizo had the power to fix it and instead they worsened it. Not all of the news was bad - Magus and Inquisitor were wonderful steps in the right direction, and Bloodrager is shaping up to be the same - but a lot of it was, and is, and continues to be. I might not be able to fix the T1s but I can advocate against new classes joining them.
So the problem isn't with the class, nor the game, it's with the Fantasy genre?
If you view the wizard (parent class 1) as broken, and the sorcerer (parent class 2) as broken, how are you hoping to 'balance' the Arcanist? Because it sounds to me like your solution would be to not only cancel the entire class, but to rip a third of the classes available In Pathfinder out of the player manual. What are you hoping to accomplish here?
'Fantasy' is a pretty open genre. Pathfinder is fantasy - but so is the A Song of Ice and Fire series, Garth Nix's Keys to the Kingdom series, the Dark Souls videogame...the list goes on and on and on. My issue with Pathfinder is that they billed me one kind of fantasy (Swords and Sorcery) and created another (Just Sorcery).
As far as what I want to accomplish here? Damage control.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually agree that 9 level spellcasters are unfair. In fact, spells are always better than no spells, and more spells are better than less spells. Magic is literally the best thing in the game and it is always better than anything else you could have.
As much as I'd like this not to be the case, I can't reasonably expect this to be fixed by adding 10 classes, can I? That's kind of ridiculous. I have taken measures to control this in games I run, but in games I PC, well, I have no say, so I'm left with having to play magic using characters.
In that context, I think Arcanist is wonderful. It is no more or less unfair than Wizards or Sorcerers, but it has a much more desirable (to me, at least) flavor and casting mechanic, so I am happy it is here.
Of course I would happiest if none of those classes was there, or if we were playing E6/E8, or Iron Heroes, or another game entirely, but if we're playing Pathfinder, I am excited by the idea of playing an Arcanist, and that's a good thing.
You also have to realize that Arcanist actually helps curtail the caster problem, because their counters and tinkering limit the power of magic. An arcanist villain, for example, can prevent PC full casters from defining every conflict on their turns, while an Arcanist PC can help non-magical PCs remain relevant by countering and tinkering away enemy spellcaster effects that ruin melee viability. I see that as a win all around.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it rather is Paizo's fault, just as it was WotC's fault before them. Pathfinder is billed as a heroic fantasy game where the players take on the roles of the heroes - or villains - of a story that takes place in a fantastic world. Except that's not how it works, since a large portion of classes in both games can't do heroic things past a certain level. Just at the point when the demons and dragons and strange abominations from the Ethereal plane show up the 'mundanes'...don't change at all. They become reliant, then utterly dependent, on spellcaster support. Past a certain point one has to ask, "Why are the non-casters even here?"
Wrong, they're dependent on magical support, which can take the form of items rather than spellcasters. Furthermore, in Pathfinder, spellcasters are no longer needed to create those items. So you can have your spellcasterless hero just fine, just equip him appropriately.
But expecting to, say, defeat a dragon or a balor in single combat with no magic of your own at all is patently ridiculous.
That's a fundamental flaw in the system. Paizo had the power to fix it and instead they worsened it. Not all of the news was bad - Magus and Inquisitor were wonderful steps in the right direction, and Bloodrager is shaping up to be the same - but a lot of it was, and is, and continues to be. I might not be able to fix the T1s but I can advocate against new classes joining them.
But all three of those classes are spellcasters! I seriously have no idea what you're trying to advocate for at this point.
Fantasy' is a pretty open genre. Pathfinder is fantasy - but so is the A Song of Ice and Fire series, Garth Nix's Keys to the Kingdom series, the Dark Souls videogame...the list goes on and on and on. My issue with Pathfinder is that they billed me one kind of fantasy (Swords and Sorcery) and created another (Just Sorcery).
I don't recall ASOIAF fighting Balors. It has dragons, but certainly not the same kind of dragons that PF/D&D does, the kind that can shapeshift and cast spells etc.
Yes, there are different kinds of fantasy, and it sounds like you're looking for one that this game doesn't offer.
As far as what I want to accomplish here? Damage control.
And this statement I understand least of all. Rather than try to make every class in the game T3, just acknowledge that the higher tier classes are not for you and ban them in your games. I don't see the point of trying to limit other people's fun just because you want a particular genre of fantasy that the game doesn't even promise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand where all this "Magic Users are broken" is coming from. Have none of you ever played a Fighter or Barbarian with a two handed weapon and power attack? You easily 1 shot just about everything whether it has damage resistance or not until you get to about level 5 or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I returned to read this thread immediately after reading the 'What is AM BARBARIAN?' Thread in the general discussion forum. There they talked about a martial build that could go one on one with a prepared full caster and win. People were designing full caster builds just to fight that one build and most failed. Then I come back to Prince of Knives.
Talk about whiplash!
For what it's worth "Swords and Sorcery" is neither low magic nor dark fantasy - to quote the wikipedia article (admittedly a dubious source but should be valid for this): Sword and sorcery (S&S), or heroic fantasy,[1] is a sub-genre of fantasy and historical fantasy, generally characterized by sword-wielding heroes engaged in exciting and violent conflicts. An element of romance is often present, as is an element of magic and the supernatural. Unlike works of high fantasy, the tales, though dramatic, focus mainly on personal battles rather than world-endangering matters.
I'd also like to note that for better or worse Prince of Knives has a valid point in that tier 1 spellcasters change the name of the game at higher levels.
In my experience Pathfinder runs very differently at higher levels depending on whether or not the party has a 9th spell level caster or not. I saw this myself during a recent RotRL session where the party's wizard couldn't make it. The party had to get from Hook Mountain to Sandpoint as fast as possible and would have had to ride there over a two-week period instead of teleporting simply because the primary spellcaster didn't show up that night and none of the other characters (Magus, Inquisitor, Paladin, Fighter, Ninja) had a good alternative for fast travel. In the end I had to handwave the wizard's absence to keep the plot on track and the party moving along.
Inferior spell-like abilities, fewer spells per day, and nothing that adds static bonuses to their spells and yet people are still calling Arcanist overpowered...
I do find it funny. Imo they are comparatively the weakest full arcane caster right now. Flavorful as hell and with a lot of cool kit, but the weakest. Will wait to see in play first though for a final judgment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to limit the schools that an Arcanist can use flies in the face of their very concept. The whole point of the class is someone that manipulates the very basic essence of magic rather than using rote and ritual. Requiring them to sacrifice three (or any!) schools of magic negates that. If you're shaping raw magic rather than spells, then the school to which a spell belongs shouldn't matter for you. An Arcanist doesn't see "Evocation spell" or "Transmutation spell", he sees "Magic energy".
If the idea is that arcanists don't have restricted schools because they are masters of magical energy, then why are there wizards? I mean that in both in and out of game terms. Wizards should understand magical energy too.
To me, magic schools aren't just shortcut rituals for simpletons(wizards?) to do magic while arcanists have some deeper understanding. That's hogwash. I view the schools of magic like I do branches of science. Transmutation is to biology what conjuration is to engineering what enchantment is to phycology what illusion is to spectroscopy what divination is to information technology and so on. That would make an arcanist a sort of physicist. But just like a physicist isn't a biologist an arcanist isnt a transmuter. I could even still see an arcanist specializing in a school. A transmuter perhaps understands how to apply biological or chemical mechanisms to achieve a desired result, where an arcanist might understand evolutionary or atomic mechanisms to gain results. (A biologist vs a geneticist perhaps)
It's not a perfect analogy but the point is just because an arcanist understands magical energy doesn't mean they're better than any sort of specialist wizard. This should also be reflected in the rules. I'm not saying banning schools for them (but I wouldn't be up in arms if they did), I'm saying that perhaps this class in a flavor sense obsoletes a wizard. Mechanically, are the class features seen here equivalent to the benefits of a school? Unfortunately it's too late to go back and give wizards talent like abilities (though there will be archetypes in this book...), but we should still attempt to keep them different and viable in both a mechanical sense and while considering what their place would be in a world with arcanists.
So yes, an arcanist definitely should still see "evocation" as different than "transmutation" just as Detect Magic does, just like gamma rays are different than X rays, just like fission looks different than fusion, just as electricity is distinguishable from gravity.
Perhaps a better analogy is the architect vs the engineer. The wizard is the architect who studies design and engineering and uses that to create new structures or models that can push the boundaries of what we thought capable. The arcanist is the engineer who studies design and engineering and uses that to create new concepts or formulae that can expand the boundaries of what we think capable. (In that sense, word casting would be very much in line with arcanists.) And just like an architect and engineer are both specialized in the same field while performing different tasks, it would make sense for an arcanist to specialize in a field just as a wizard does. If we stick with different magics as different sciences it's almost crazy to suggest otherwise. The "essence" of evocation magic need not be the same as that of transmutation. The Big Bang is certainly not the essence of botany.
In terms of play, I would ban 2 schools to get another prepared spell/level for my arcanist.
The point was supposed to be: Wizards are magic scholars too. Don't just take that flavor from them and give it to arcanists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we've discerned the heart of our disagreement. I'd rather firmly place the 9-level casting classes in the 'broken' department, especially after Pathfinder went and gave them Real Class Features, which they were rather sorely not in need of.
That is your opinion....and it's not an opinion that many people probably share.
Acting as if Paizo "is at fault" for not adjusting the game as a whole to meet your opinion of "broken" is a little unrealistic...IMO.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In practice they will work out pretty strong since the player is freed both from predicting what spells he will need for his entire career and from predicting how many of a given spell he will need in a given day (plus which ones to apply metamagic to, etc.) It removes a lot of the guesswork from wizardry.
But with such low base spells/day I'm no longer worried about their power relative to the other two primary arcane casters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying an arcanist using their weakest tricks is worse than a wizard or sorcerer using their weakest tricks. Wow, thanks for supporting one of my points.
And what point is that? It seems like you have more of a problem with spellcasters in general rather than just the Arcanist. If you have a problem with spellcasters in general this really isn't the thread to discuss that. This is a thread for the Arcanist specifically, not spellcasters as a whole. I am comparing the Arcanist to its two alternate classes. It is coming up weaker in ways that its versatility just can't make up for. All they would have to do is let them add their Cha modifier to their Arcane reservoir each day and they won't be forced to carry a crossbow at level 1.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Saidoro: the problem is that magic is as much art as science. You can have a near-perfect scientific understanding of the theory behind sound and light frequencies, but that knowledge won't make you a world-class composer or painter on its own. So too it is with magic - knowing how it works isn't enough to grant you total control over its use.
@ William: Blood Focus is gone dude, reread the OP.
In practice they will work out pretty strong since the player is freed both from predicting what spells he will need for his entire career and from predicting how many of a given spell he will need in a given day (plus which ones to apply metamagic to, etc.) It removes a lot of the guesswork from wizardry.
But with such low base spells/day I'm no longer worried about their power relative to the other two primary arcane casters.
The Arcanist still needs a spell book, though. This gives the flexibility a ceiling (though a moving one) and adds a cost to the library of spells at one's disposal. The Arcanist has as many concerns as the wizard does regarding the loss of a spell book.
It's not a hard cap, nor is it intended to be one. It is present though.
@ Saidoro: the problem is that magic is as much art as science. You can have a near-perfect scientific understanding of the theory behind sound and light frequencies, but that knowledge won't make you a world-class composer or painter on its own. So too it is with magic - knowing how it works isn't enough to grant you total control over its use.
@ William: Blood Focus is gone dude, reread the OP.
Science is as much art as it is science all too often. And art can be as much science as art as well. It's why music theory is a thing. It's why psychoacoustics is a thing. Understanding music theory won't make you a world class composer, but you'll definitely never be one without it.
I have no idea how this is related to the arcanist, especially since it's currently portrayed as much more a scientist than artist.