Arcanist is tier 1 to Summoners Tier 2, but keep in mind that's merely saying that an Arcanist has *more* ways to break a game then a Summoner. I actually like Occultist Arcanists, since the odd level scaling of the Summon Monster Ability (which you can effectively convert *all* your spell slots to the highest level version) helps to offset the Arcanists low spells per day and Sorcerer speed spell progression.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was meant as a joke. He does a very good job pointing the issue with a summoner.
What do you all feel about the arcanist in relation to the summoner.
I don't feel qualified to answer that as I've spent little to no time perusing the classes from the advanced player's guide. The playtest arcanist looked pretty ridiculous due to certain specific arcanas that they get (and still get AFAIK), but as I haven't really bothered to dig into them (and haven't had any players in any of my groups ready to jump into one) I'm not really the one to ask.
Aratrok has more experience with the ACG classes and I usually differ to him when someone asks about ACG classes. There are some things that I find interesting about the arcanist and so I might look into it more deeply at a later time (the skald seemed pretty interesting at first glance as well).
Psionics has been stealing most of my attention in game though. Most of the time when I want to play a caster I find myself wandering off to a psionic character (usually psion, but vitalists and wilders are cool too) because I generally find them more fun mechanically (note I didn't say more powerful) and ideal for the themes of magic I'm looking for in my characters, but the hybrid prepared/spontaneous bit might make the arcanist worth looking into sometime in the future.
However, I've been spending a lot of time at work lately and also have some other priorities (I've got a few character concepts in que without a game for them yet, there's a game I'm running when I can, working on a rogue rewrite, the warlock for Kryzbyn, some monster rewrites, need to check the dates for RPG superstar because I actually remembered it this year and submitted a thing, and make time to hang out with friends & family :P) but we'll see.
It was meant as a joke. He does a very good job pointing the issue with a summoner.
What do you all feel about the arcanist in relation to the summoner.
I don't feel qualified to answer that as I've spent little to no time perusing the classes from the advanced player's guide. The playtest arcanist looked pretty ridiculous due to certain specific arcanas that they get (and still get AFAIK), but as I haven't really bothered to dig into them (and haven't had any players in any of my groups ready to jump into one) I'm not really the one to ask.
Aratrok has more experience with the ACG classes and I usually differ to him when someone asks about ACG classes. There are some things that I find interesting about the arcanist and so I might look into it more deeply at a later time (the skald seemed pretty interesting at first glance as well).
Psionics has been stealing most of my attention in game though. Most of the time when I want to play a caster I find myself wandering off to a psionic character (usually psion, but vitalists and wilders are cool too) because I generally find them more fun mechanically (note I didn't say more powerful) and ideal for the themes of magic I'm looking for in my characters, but the hybrid prepared/spontaneous bit might make the arcanist worth looking into sometime in the future.
However, I've been spending a lot of time at work lately and also have some other priorities (I've got a few character concepts in que without a game for them yet, there's a game I'm running when I can, working on a rogue rewrite, the warlock for Kryzbyn, some monster rewrites, need to check the dates for RPG superstar because I actually remembered it this year and submitted a thing, and make time to hang out with friends & family :P) but we'll see.
Arcanist is probably tier 1, but beneath the Wizard. It turned out to not be as strong as was feared.
The Shaman on the other hand lets you cross Cleric out of your book and never look back. While pilfering it's spell list. And the Wizard/Sorcerer list. And a hex from the Witch. With some spontaneous casting. With a Flexible Domain. And flexible hexes. Not to mention the d8 HD, the 3/4th BAB and 4+Int Skill points. Oh sure it loses good Fort save. But can Channel and Domains really top all that? I humbly submit that it cannot.
|
The Shaman on the other hand lets you cross Cleric out of your book and never look back. While pilfering it's spell list. And the Wizard/Sorcerer list. And a hex from the Witch. With some spontaneous casting. With a Flexible Domain. And flexible hexes. Not to mention the d8 HD, the 3/4th BAB and 4+Int Skill points. Oh sure it loses good Fort save. But can Channel and Domains really top all that? I humbly submit that it cannot.
The shaman has some serious MAD issues:
Arcane Enlightenment (Su): The shaman's native intelligence grants her the ability to tap into arcane lore. The shaman can add a number of spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1) to the list of shaman spells she can prepare. To cast these spells she must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell's level, but the saving throw DCs of these spells are based on her Wisdom rather than Intelligence. When she casts these spells, they are treated as divine rather than arcane. Each time the shaman gains a level after taking this hex, she can choose to replace one of these spells for a new spell on the wizard/sorcerer spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Shaman on the other hand lets you cross Cleric out of your book and never look back. While pilfering it's spell list. And the Wizard/Sorcerer list. And a hex from the Witch. With some spontaneous casting. With a Flexible Domain. And flexible hexes. Not to mention the d8 HD, the 3/4th BAB and 4+Int Skill points. Oh sure it loses good Fort save. But can Channel and Domains really top all that? I humbly submit that it cannot.The shaman has some serious MAD issues:
Arcane Enlightenment (Su): The shaman's native intelligence grants her the ability to tap into arcane lore. The shaman can add a number of spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1) to the list of shaman spells she can prepare. To cast these spells she must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell's level, but the saving throw DCs of these spells are based on her Wisdom rather than Intelligence. When she casts these spells, they are treated as divine rather than arcane. Each time the shaman gains a level after taking this hex, she can choose to replace one of these spells for a new spell on the wizard/sorcerer spell list.That's not really that special. Just means she needs 19 Int by 9th level casting. That's trivial. The DCs being based on Wisdom is also a pretty sweet deal (Wisdom being a save boosting stat and all).
Now I'm curious. I might go check out the shaman when I get back from work.
EDIT Wrong thread. ^.^"
Fun times when that happens!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, I'll re-submit that when DrDeth and I actually agree on something game-related, that something can probably be taken as gospel.
We agree with a lot of stuff Kirth, just that we both like to argue too much. We both love gaming, roleplaying, Pathfinder, and bunches of stuff. I respect your opinion on many things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dr Deth performing thread necromancy. I suppose with a name like that, it was inevitable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, ooh, Mark has indicated this MAY just be the topic of the new FAQ!
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7kg&page=44?Ask-Mark-Seifter-All-Your-Que stions-Here#2169
Let's hope!
Has this topic been forgotten? It used to be pretty high up on the number of requested FAQs?
Should come out in the next couple weeks! Been looking forward to this blog for a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should come out in the next couple weeks! Been looking forward to this blog for a while.
From the office of expectation management: I never gave a timeframe, and I would be shocked to see it in the next couple weeks. It's true that I have a first draft, but that's not news.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so it's been a few months Mark, can we hope to see it soon?
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still nothing. 3 years 51 FAQ hits.
Sure. But this is often touted as why Pathfinder is broken. Altho I doubt if it sees much IRL table-top use, fixing it will help out the community.
It is people making a decision first and looking for RAW they can make extremely strained interpretations on to back their pre-made decisions.
With Simulacrum:
It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature’s levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).
Very few GMs are going to agree that Wish is appropriate for a 5HD creature.
Mark Seifter did a good video in his channel on simulacrum, while not an official FAQ it is the interpration of one of the devs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. But this is often touted as why Pathfinder is broken. Altho I doubt if it sees much IRL table-top use, fixing it will help out the community.It is people making a decision first and looking for RAW they can make extremely strained interpretations on to back their pre-made decisions.
With Simulacrum:
It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature’s levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).Very few GMs are going to agree that Wish is appropriate for a 5HD creature.
Eh. Wish isn't usually appropriate for a 10 HD creature either, though. It only makes sense for this creature because of the restriction placed on its use of wish. With such a restriction--and outside the context of making simulacra of it--Hit Dice aren't really that relevant.
Run a search for "Ask Mark anything" Mark Seifter Pathfinder, or something like that. That should get you to his youtube or twitch channel. Several cool things.
Eh. Wish isn't usually appropriate for a 10 HD creature either, though. It only makes sense for this creature because of the restriction placed on its use of wish. With such a restriction--and outside the context of making simulacra of it--Hit Dice aren't really that relevant.Sure. But this is often touted as why Pathfinder is broken. Altho I doubt if it sees much IRL table-top use, fixing it will help out the community.It is people making a decision first and looking for RAW they can make extremely strained interpretations on to back their pre-made decisions.
With Simulacrum:
It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature’s levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).Very few GMs are going to agree that Wish is appropriate for a 5HD creature.
It obviously is relevant; HD are listed as a determining factor in the spell, as demonstrated in the quoted text.
Sure. But this is often touted as why Pathfinder is broken. Altho I doubt if it sees much IRL table-top use, fixing it will help out the community.
It is people making a decision first and looking for RAW they can make extremely strained interpretations on to back their pre-made decisions.
With Simulacrum:
It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature’s levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).Very few GMs are going to agree that Wish is appropriate for a 5HD creature.
Eh. Wish isn't usually appropriate for a 10 HD creature either, though. It only makes sense for this creature because of the restriction placed on its use of wish. With such a restriction--and outside the context of making simulacra of it--Hit Dice aren't really that relevant.
It obviously is relevant; HD are listed as a determining factor in the spell, as demonstrated in the quoted text.
Yes and no.
You're ignoring the point blahpers is making.
It absolutely is relevant for HD. But what that means is exceptionally vague, and highly variable.
Here are some examples:
- a bugbear rogue 3/wizard 3/arcane trickster 1; this makes the original have 3+3+3+1=10 HD, but 7 levels; the simulacra would, then, be hypothetically 5 HD (half the hit dice), but probably only 3.5 levels - this is (for simplicity) likely going to be 2 racial HD and drop the level down to 3.
- a mature adult black dragon (16 HD) would yield a half HD (8 HD) simulacra, which is the same as a young black dragon; the question, then, comes up if it's 8 HD and a young black dragon's abilities, or simply an 8 HD variant of an adult black dragon.
- a genius shoggoth (INT 12) with the wizard creature template (INT -> 16) would have a caster level of 21 and (hypothetical) access up to 8th level spells (though it'd have to have some sort of augmentation to its intelligence to get that high); a simulacra, then, would be 11 HD (or 12, but given the tendency to round down, 11) and a CL of 9, as well as hypothetical access to 4th level spells (which its intelligence would allow for).
- anything with the celestial (or half celestial; or many other) template(s) matter which the resultant HD is, because it has explicit, concrete abilities tied to HD (though the SR is tied to CR instead)
- a solar retains literally all of its abilities (CL 20th cleric spells, all of its spell-likes, etc.) while being an 11 HD creature, including wish once per day (which you can point to a non-simulacra efreeti as pointing out another 10-ish HD with wish SLA; it's - potentially - legit). "Why?" you may ask (which is a legitimate question); the answer is simple: because nothing* within its discussion, stat block, or any other thing* is noted as being part of it or related to it. You can do the same thing with lantern archons, imps (3 HD, CL 6 or CL 12 for commune, though still only six questions) and so on.
Now, to be clear, it is entirely reasonable for a GM to rule against this and on all sorts of grounds, ranging from game imbalance to the fact that the GM just really, really, really does not want to have to deal with that nonsense. Of course, a player is also in his rights to protest for similar reasons. Of course, of course a player and GM should both be cognizant of the other when they make their decisions and set their sights on whatever end-goals, ideas, or hopes they have. Arguments at the table are really only okay if the people involved are kind to each other and work to make the gaming experience better over-all for all (and for individuals).
But as for RAW, there is no clean or clear RAW method of clarifying what, exactly, is based on "hit dice"* for the simulacrum spell.
*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've gone with the idea of the CL drops by the samen number the HD drops. So a CL8 HD6 creature would become CL5 HD3.
Another creature with a major SLA like ability: Hag. Weakest hag is 4HD, and plenty have way more. Yet all share the ability to form a coven. So a 5HD sim of a 10HD hag has more HD than the 4HD hag. Since the 4HD hag can form a coven, so why not a sim with more HD?
/cevah
I've gone with the idea of the CL drops by the samen number the HD drops. So a CL8 HD6 creature would become CL5 HD3.
Another creature with a major SLA like ability: Hag. Weakest hag is 4HD, and plenty have way more. Yet all share the ability to form a coven. So a 5HD sim of a 10HD hag has more HD than the 4HD hag. Since the 4HD hag can form a coven, so why not a sim with more HD?
/cevah
I think your adjucation is super reasonable and probably a good idea, though I feel it can be reasonably demonstrated that in PF a creature’s HD is decoupled from its hit dice (whereas in 3.x the two were presumed to be tied together, even when they varied).
But, yes, your example is another perfect example of what I mean: there is no reasonable power limit to a hag’s HD to join a coven, yet it has a higher caster level in many cases. Wish I’d thought of it!
I've gone with the idea of the CL drops by the samen number the HD drops. So a CL8 HD6 creature would become CL5 HD3.
Another creature with a major SLA like ability: Hag. Weakest hag is 4HD, and plenty have way more. Yet all share the ability to form a coven. So a 5HD sim of a 10HD hag has more HD than the 4HD hag. Since the 4HD hag can form a coven, so why not a sim with more HD?
/cevah
This is where the DM, with human reasoning and common sense, comes into play.
Since hags of all HD have the coven ability, it would most likey remain appropriate for a simulacrum of a bag.
With a simulacrum of a multi classed character, it will be the DM's call how classes are divided. That is what the DM is there for, to make the call when the rules don't specifically answer the question (Something that would require 6 more bestiaries just to cover Simulacrum.)
I've gone with the idea of the CL drops by the samen number the HD drops. So a CL8 HD6 creature would become CL5 HD3.
Another creature with a major SLA like ability: Hag. Weakest hag is 4HD, and plenty have way more. Yet all share the ability to form a coven. So a 5HD sim of a 10HD hag has more HD than the 4HD hag. Since the 4HD hag can form a coven, so why not a sim with more HD?
/cevah
This is where the DM, with human reasoning and common sense, comes into play.
Since hags of all HD have the coven ability, it would most likey remain appropriate for a simulacrum of a hag.
With a simulacrum of a multi classed character, it will be the DM's call how classes are divided. That is what the DM is there for, to make the call when the rules don't specifically answer the question (Something that would require 6 more bestiaries just to cover Simulacrum.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It obviously is relevant; HD are listed as a determining factor in the spell, as demonstrated in the quoted text.Eh. Wish isn't usually appropriate for a 10 HD creature either, though. It only makes sense for this creature because of the restriction placed on its use of wish. With such a restriction--and outside the context of making simulacra of it--Hit Dice aren't really that relevant.Sure. But this is often touted as why Pathfinder is broken. Altho I doubt if it sees much IRL table-top use, fixing it will help out the community.It is people making a decision first and looking for RAW they can make extremely strained interpretations on to back their pre-made decisions.
With Simulacrum:
It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature’s levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).Very few GMs are going to agree that Wish is appropriate for a 5HD creature.
The wish spell-like ability of a noble djinn (or whatever we're talking about at this point) is not described or implied to be based on Hit Dice. In that sense, Hit Dice are not relevant here.
As for the general question of whether it's appropriate for a 5HD (or a 10HD) creature to have wish as a spell-like ability, my previous comment stands.
|
I've gone with the idea of the CL drops by the samen number the HD drops. So a CL8 HD6 creature would become CL5 HD3.
Another creature with a major SLA like ability: Hag. Weakest hag is 4HD, and plenty have way more. Yet all share the ability to form a coven. So a 5HD sim of a 10HD hag has more HD than the 4HD hag. Since the 4HD hag can form a coven, so why not a sim with more HD?
/cevah
This is where the DM, with human reasoning and common sense, comes into play.
Since hags of all HD have the coven ability, it would most likey remain appropriate for a simulacrum of a bag.
With a simulacrum of a multi classed character, it will be the DM's call how classes are divided. That is what the DM is there for, to make the call when the rules don't specifically answer the question (Something that would require 6 more bestiaries just to cover Simulacrum.)
It requires a lot of adjudication, but some things seem reasonable:
- prestige classes should have the prerequisites;- the simulacrum should have about half the power of the original creature, so the simulacrum of a wizard 3, cleric 1, Aristocrat 2 shouldn't be a wizard 3, but be a wizard 1, cleric 1 and aristocrat 1 or wizard 2 and either aristocrat or cleric 1. Retaining access to the higher level spells thanks to the way in which you choose what classes are retained should be avoided.
One of the problems with the simulacrum is that it is a hybrid between a construct and the original type of the creature. It has some of the limits of constructs (primarily the inability to heal by itself and the inability to increase its levels) but it retains the abilities of the original type, creating a kind of Frankenstein monster when ruling how it should work.
I would rule any broken ability as only being obtained at the last racial HD. Do a half HD efreti would not have wish.
The wish spell-like ability of a noble djinn (or whatever we're talking about at this point) is not described or implied to be based on Hit Dice. In that sense, Hit Dice are not relevant here.
As for the general question of whether it's appropriate for a 5HD (or a 10HD) creature to have wish as a spell-like ability, my previous comment stands.
The source creatures are not required to, and typically do not, discuss SLAs in terms of HD. There is no reason for them to do so as they were not formatted for Simulacrum.
The HD clause is in the simulacrum spell and applies to anything and everything created by it. All SLAs and abilities are subject to DM adjudication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wish spell-like ability of a noble djinn (or whatever we're talking about at this point) is not described or implied to be based on Hit Dice. In that sense, Hit Dice are not relevant here.
As for the general question of whether it's appropriate for a 5HD (or a 10HD) creature to have wish as a spell-like ability, my previous comment stands.
The source creatures are not required to, and typically do not, discuss SLAs in terms of HD. There is no reason for them to do so as they were not formatted for Simulacrum.
The HD clause is in the simulacrum spell and applies to anything and everything created by it. All SLAs and abilities are subject to DM adjudication.
Savage Species had examples for many monstrous progressions and clearly laid out that abilities were tied to HD. Doing HD progressions for all monsters would just be a waste of dev resources, but a GM should assume that the power level gap between a 20HD monster and its 10HD simulacrum should be comparable to the gap between a lvl20 character and its lvl10 version. Monstrous progression is not purely HD and the resulting BAB, saves, HP, skills, and feats. Many monsters have advanced variants that clearly show the appearance of new abilities that a simple linear progression would not grant.