|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not generally, no.
To address some specific points:
1. Yeah...this one's probably fair. There was already very little reason to play one as compared to a Wizard, though. And Wizards and Arcanists are much more on par.
2. Eh. Barbarians have several advantages. A more in depth discussion of this one can be found here.
3. The Rogue was already completely eclipsed by a host of other Classes and Archetypes (Archaeologist Bards, Vivisectionist Trapbreaker Alchemists, Urban Rangers, etc.) The general consensus is that, mechanically, Slayer is slightly worse than Ranger...which is the other Class it's based on, after all. Making classes 'not better than the Rogue' is a good way to ensure that nobody ever plays them, since Rogues are wisely acknowledged as one of the worst classes in the game.
And Paladin/Warpriest are mechanically distinct, and thematically distinct as well IMO. Paladins aren't actually defined by their deities, being instead empowered by the force of their own righteousness, they can be associated with Gods, but an atheist Paladin works too. An atheist Warpriest is also technically possible, but thematically really weird. For the most part, like Clerics,they are defined by being the champion of a specific deity.
You are not alone in your concerns- a lot of people have voiced similar opinions.
1. Yes. With the Arcanist's ability to pilfer an entire bloodline, literally the only things sorcerers still have going for them are spells per day and the Razmiran Priest archetype. And spells per day pales as an advantage compared to more skill points, ability to change spells known each day, move action teleports, immediate action counterspells, and tons of other things. Easily my least favorite part of the ACG.
2. Barbarians do have some advantages, as Deadmanwalking said, but that list is getting pretty slim. The bloodrager's access to all the barbarian's tricks to some extent and spells along with some really nice bloodlines means that the bloodrager is a definite step up in most cases. However, I honestly really enjoy the bloodrager as a fun martial character with options, so I'm a little biased.
3. The rogue died a long time ago.
1. Sorcerers have consistency... they have their bloodline powers ALWAYS, not at the temporary expenditure of a limited resource point pool. They can also develop their bloodlines far beyond any arcanist can manage, and have access to a whole range of bloodlines archaists can't touch.2. I don't know Barbarians well enough to comment.
3. Rougues seem well and healthy enough in games run outside of message board theory craft. They do take more work and thought to play effectively, but that's been true since day one.
For what I was referring to in point 1, I suggest you take a look at this
|
|
1. Yes. With the Arcanist's ability to pilfer an entire bloodline, literally the only things sorcerers still have going for them are spells per day and the Razmiran Priest archetype. And spells per day pales as an advantage compared to more skill points, ability to change spells known each day, move action teleports, immediate action counterspells, and tons of other things. Easily my least favorite part of the ACG.
Yeah, that's a bit of a problem.
2. Barbarians do have some advantages, as Deadmanwalking said, but that list is getting pretty slim. The bloodrager's access to all the barbarian's tricks to some extent and spells along with some really nice bloodlines means that the bloodrager is a definite step up in most cases. However, I honestly really enjoy the bloodrager as a fun martial character with options, so I'm a little biased.
The Bloodrager is very nice, but not being able to take Extra Rage Power even as a Primalist really hurts, as does the lack of an Invulnerable Rager equivalent. They're solid, but they're not unambiguously better. Though they aren't unambiguously worse either.
|
|
And you should note the following.
The blood arcanist does not gain the class skill, bonus feats, or bonus spells from her bloodline.
So?
For a lot of Bloodlines, an Arcanist already has the Class Skill, frankly they just have a much better skill list than Sorcerers. Exploits are usually better than Feats (and can be used to grab a couple of Feats if you like). And as for spells...they can pick those up for their spellbook with minimal gp investment.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Arcanist is powerful, but the Sorcerer and Wizard are already really powerful. I am guessing in average play, there really won't be much a difference in performance.
The Arcanist might be slightly better than the Sorcerer, but I will say I have a mage character upcoming and I am agonizing whether I want to play a specialist wizard vs an exploiter wizard vs an arcanist, each one has their strengths over the other...so I consider that good class design. I dont consider the Arcanist any more superior over the sorcerer than the core wizard was already though.
For what I was referring to in point 1, I suggest you take a look at this
1. Sorcerers have consistency... they have their bloodline powers ALWAYS, not at the temporary expenditure of a limited resource point pool. They can also develop their bloodlines far beyond any arcanist can manage, and have access to a whole range of bloodlines archaists can't touch.2. I don't know Barbarians well enough to comment.
3. Rougues seem well and healthy enough in games run outside of message board theory craft. They do take more work and thought to play effectively, but that's been true since day one.
And you should note the following.
The blood arcanist does not gain the class skill, bonus feats, or bonus spells from her bloodline.
Not getting bless and a +1 enhancement to wisdom is not going to break the bank on many builds. If your builds gone because you lost your free fireball spell you might want to play a vanilla fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most balance issues don't really exist outside of theorycraft. A few issues to a dress though.
First the message boards seem to give the impression OF is harder than it is. This then confuses the issue as people push optimization as a me wasn't sure for survival. There's nothing wrong with optimization but you only need to be as optimized as the people you play with.
Second it doesn't matter if one class is better than another unless two players are doing identical things in the same group.
And you should note the following.
The blood arcanist does not gain the class skill, bonus feats, or bonus spells from her bloodline.
So?
For a lot of Bloodlines, an Arcanist already has the Class Skill, frankly they just have a much better skill list than Sorcerers. Exploits are usually better than Feats (and can be used to grab a couple of Feats if you like). And as for spells...they can pick those up for their spellbook with minimal gp investment.
They also give up 4 exploits and they dont even get all of the benefits. It seems ok to me.
If someone that knows the system well plays sorcerer, arcanist, or wizard the amount of trouble they cause you will likely be about the same. It might come in different ways, but with how good a sorcerer is, even if it is the weaker of the 3 it won't really matter much. I have never someone with good system mastery play a similar class and drop off, unless they were holding back. At the same time if someone is not that good with the system they don't get a lot better by playing another similar class.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. Thanks for your inputs!
I come from this mostly as from a DM. I normally try to quash things I consider a bit too powerful, and it hasn't been a big deal to just not green-light certain archetypes or whatever.
In the general case, the power level wasn't ramping in Pathfinder, I did not feel. In general, you guys have pointed to some moderate or high op builds and have said "well, this was already a thing". Which is valid, if you were already allowing that thing, or discussing the game as a whole.
As for wizard versus sorc, the fact of the matter is that these two play differently enough and have pretty big strengths and weaknesses, that I found that there's enough interplay. Sorcs are, over the course of a game, a bit weaker than wizards (just my opinion), but they also have some pretty clear moments of strengths. I feel it would take a very optimized sorc, or maybe none at all, to really compete with an Arcanist.
And balance issues aren't really a theorycraft one. My table will feel robbed if I allow stuff that they consider way more powerful, after all, as such choices make their iconic choices taste bad. I thought that Paizo had been doing a solid job with power levels, and now I kinda don't. Which is unfortunate, because the same state I ended up with in 3.X is in danger of happening here- that is to say, the core stuff is considered only useful if properly extended, and parts are considered obsolete, and the message boards become incoherent if you have to walk into the conversation saying "ok I need advice on a bard, but I'm not allowed to use X, Y, or Z". I'm sure you all saw that happen in 3.X when Nine Swords game out- if you walked into giant's forums and asked about a fighter (this is probably still true to this moment) you would get at least one guy who was like "If you are the one who banned warblades, I will fight you. If it is your DM, tell him X such that I can fight him through you."
Anyway, it sounds like you guys are generally of the opinion that these...
The CRB is the worst offender of power disparity. Many of the later classes are in the middle and better balanced. I have learned over the years that some things look a lot better on paper than they really are, and until someone runs an actual campaign with arcanist we won't really know. We can just guess. That is why it is theorycraft at least until someone experiences it. Even then it will depend on the table's playstyle.
If your players don't like certain things then the group can agree to not use them, at least until a new campaign starts up. That way a new player does not have any real or perceived advantages because they came into the group later on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll agree with wraithstrike. Try the new stuff out and see if there's any issue. Then check to see what errata/FAQ's come out for the new material. You may find things end up fine. If they don't, then house-rule it out but I haven't seen anything that seems OMG powerful. At best, power seems in the same range as those already here.
1)- Arcanist versus Sorc: I can still see myself playing a Sorc now that the Arcanist is out. That says to me it's not a slam dunk.
2)- Bloodrager versus Barbarian: Same as above. I can think of several builds that I'd much rather have a barbarian for.
3)- Slayer versus Rogue: Sorry, rogue has been overshadowed from the start. There are SO many classes that outdo it in trapfinding, skills AND combat it's just not an issue. Does the slayer throw some more dirt on the rogue's grave? Sure, but the hole's been filled for quite some time now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Human Sorcerer has a truly enormous number of spells known, so his versatility is certainly much better than most people make it out to be. He's also got spontaneous metamagic, something the other two can only get on a limited basis. Beyond that it's a very fair observation that the Sorcerer's niche has been encroached, not to mention another nail in the coffin for non-human Sorcerers.
2) Not really convinced; the Bloodrager seems to have action economy issues in combat, and not enough out-of-combat options to significantly outshine the Barbaran.
3) The baseline Rogue, Fighter, and Monk are very weak classes. Insisting that new classes or archetypes be "balanced" against them just ensures the new class is lackluster.
1)- Arcanist versus Sorc. How does this guy not outclass the sorc?
Sorcerer has a lot more spells per day and doesn't need to worry about two ability scores to use all of his tricks. (Arcanist doesn't NEED Charisma per say, but the fun blasty exploits certainly do.)
2)- Bloodrager versus Barbarian. The Bloodrager really seems to have a lot going for him compared to the Barbarian.
The barbarian is more flexible. The standard bloodrager is pretty much locked into his rage powers via a bloodline, while the barbarian can take whatever he wants. Even if you take the archetype that allows you to take rage powers instead of bloodline powers, the barbarian gets more of them.
3)- Slayer versus Rogue. The rogue has a bit of skill oomph going on out of combat, so maybe that's enough, but the slayer really seems to gain a lot of offensive power while keeping a lot of the rogue kit.
This one is fair, but the sad truth is that when you hybrid something with rogue, you either make it worse than the rogue or better. There is very little middle ground. Hopefully Pathfinder Unchained will address this with the unchained rogue.
I'm also having a hard time thematically with a warpriest and a paladin sort of stepping on each other. I mean, the cleric is already kind of martial to begin with, how is there so much design space? But those guys at least are mechanically distinct, right?
This is mostly in the Charisma-versus-Wisdom bit. While many paladins worship Lawful Good deities to serve as a guideline for what Lawful Good behavior looks like, the paladin doesn't need to worship a deity. A paladin earns his powers from the strength of his own righteous conduct. A warpriest, on the other hand, is bestowed power directly by a deity to fight their fights in the world. Basically, paladins earn their powers while warpriests are granted it. This is why paladins fall when they lose their Lawful Goodness and wapriests only fall when they no longer align with their deity's interests. A warpriest of Iomaedae can change from Lawful Good to Neutral Good but still embody the teachings of Iomaedae, and therefore receive his powers. A paladin gets her powers from being a paragon of Lawful Good conduct, a shining beacon of righteousness for her fellows, and if she ever stops being that pillar of faith, she loses her powers.
Well, although nobody has mentioned it so far, I think we all can agree that Divine Protection is too good, right?
Or are there people who seriously want to defend that feat? Y'know, without being tongue-in-cheek or drunk.
Well, although nobody has mentioned it so far, I think we all can agree that Divine Protection is too good, right?
Or are there people who seriously want to defend that feat? Y'know, without being tongue-in-cheek or drunk.
It works perfectly in my campaign! If anything I find it a little underpowered compared to "Arcane Power" which gives you spellcasting as a sorcerer of your level, "martial training", which gives you full BAB progression or "Nature Soul", which gives you a druid's wild shape and animal companion.
I don't understand why people complain about fighters - all the bonus feats mean they get more class features than anyone else!
|
|
Well, although nobody has mentioned it so far, I think we all can agree that Divine Protection is too good, right?
Or are there people who seriously want to defend that feat? Y'know, without being tongue-in-cheek or drunk.
I think people sometimes exaggerate how troublesome it is...but yeah, Divine Protection is flat-out too good.
The rogue was a really poorly designed class from the start, and Paizo overvalued spontaneous casting when balancing the sorcerer with the wizard. That being said, class balance is not an issue as long as everyone has fun. I had players find overpowered classes unfun to play just as others find underpowered classes unfun to play.
I think people sometimes exaggerate how troublesome it is...but yeah, Divine Protection is flat-out too good.Well, although nobody has mentioned it so far, I think we all can agree that Divine Protection is too good, right?
Or are there people who seriously want to defend that feat? Y'know, without being tongue-in-cheek or drunk.
I don't think they do. I've seen what extremely good saves can make a character. Which is "near invulnerable".
Paizo overvalued spontaneous casting when balancing the sorcerer with the wizard.
I think you mean WOTC did; Paizo just chose not to change it (either because they agreed with the assessment, or for backwards compatibility reasons).
I've long since houseruled Spont Casters to advance at the same rate as prepared and have yet to have issues with it in-game.
|
|
I don't think they do. I've seen what extremely good saves can make a character. Which is "near invulnerable".I think people sometimes exaggerate how troublesome it is...but yeah, Divine Protection is flat-out too good.Well, although nobody has mentioned it so far, I think we all can agree that Divine Protection is too good, right?
Or are there people who seriously want to defend that feat? Y'know, without being tongue-in-cheek or drunk.
It does make Saves vastly better, and that is a problem. But any non-spellcaster (and many casters) can get that with a Paladin dip and I've seen them do so. It's not the end of the world and doesn't make them invulnerable (heck, the Paladin in my current game has died more than anyone). It's a bad Feat because it's orders of magnitude better than any other Feats, not because it instantly breaks the game completely or anything like that.
A feat is a lot less of a hit than a 2 level class dip.
That and "dipping Paladin" really should be something few characters would do, given the obvious alignment and roleplaying issues. On a purely mechanical standpoint two levels are vastly more involved than one feat.
A feat is a lot less of a hit than a 2 level class dip.
You also get a LOT more that the feat for doing so.
|
|
A feat is a lot less of a hit than a 2 level class dip.
Oh, totally. Which is why the Feat is brokenly good. But it's not "By taking this Feat I win the game." good.
That and "dipping Paladin" really should be something few characters would do, given the obvious alignment and roleplaying issues. On a purely mechanical standpoint two levels are vastly more involved than one feat.
Eh...'dipping Paladin' is something you build a character intending to do, so it's thematically limiting, but no more so than playing a Paladin in the first place.
For most non-oracles, characters that will get a 'broken' benefit from Divine Protection will need to dip for the mystery/domain/blessing req, so it's more like 1 class level and a feat vs. 2 class levels.
It's a broken feat in the same way that power attack is 'broken,' numerically it's far better than comparable feats. But it's still nothing compared to the power of Dazing Spell and Spell Perfection, and those have been around for a long time.
Oh, totally. Which is why the Feat is brokenly good. But it's not "By taking this Feat I win the game." good.
Becoming near invulnerable to effects which require saving throws is a significant step to "winning" at PF. Well, as much as you can "win" an RPG, y'know.
Oh, totally. Which is why the Feat is brokenly good. But it's not "By taking this Feat I win the game." good.Becoming near invulnerable to effects which require saving throws is a significant step to "winning" at PF. Well, as much as you can "win" an RPG, y'know.
Well, it's certainly a no-brainer if you're playing an Oracle. But you need at least a 14 charisma to make it worthwhile, and if you're not a divine caster you'd need a three-level dip in a divine caster class, no? (I don't have the new book so maybe I'm wrong about the prerequisites.) So the characters it's really powerful for are quite limited.
You could qualify with a racial SLA (such as that of an Aasimar with the Incorruptible alternate racial trait). Then you'd only need a one level dip.
Well, if you have a cha of 14 it's three feats for the price of one, with an easy scaling upgrade in sight if you're not using your headband slot for something else.
A single level in cleric, oracle or inquisitor will qualify you for Divine Protection if you pick the right mystery/domain.
Even with a cha of 12 and no +cha item it's still a decent feat.
there is also a possible interpretation of believers boon meeting the domain qualification.
A feat is a lot less of a hit than a 2 level class dip.
That's debatable. I have 10 feats and only 20 levels. Having to spend a feat to get a class ability that I can get with a 2 level dip is a lot more to me than a 2 level dip. I'm usually feat starved when ever I play a divine caster. Just too many feats I want and not feats to take them. So a 2 level dip in Paladin is worth in most cases. The biggest reason I won't take a 2 level dip into Paladin is the alignment.
Edit, still don't like this feat though. I'd HATE to see an caster focused Oracle with having +10 to saves due to 30 CHR.
Well, although nobody has mentioned it so far, I think we all can agree that Divine Protection is too good, right?
Or are there people who seriously want to defend that feat? Y'know, without being tongue-in-cheek or drunk.
In my honest opinion, Divine Protection is only too good for the oracle. If the "mystery class feature" bit was dropped, it would be better.
The reason is that there is generally little reason to stack Charisma on the other classes with access to domains or blessings. Druids, Warpriests, Inquisitors, and Rangers (with the help of an archetype) get nothing out of Charisma aside from a boost to skills. Giving them Divine Protection is like a throwback to 3.5 when Paladin spellcasting was Wisdom based.
Clerics still get some milage out of Divine Protection because they have Channel Energy, which makes them want to invest at least a little bit into Charisma. Same with that one Warpriest archetype that gives Warpriests the ability to gain a Paladin's Smite (the class that this feat was probably designed for).
Divine Protection really falls apart where oracles are involved, since they are inclined to stack Charisma anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are wondering why I am reviving an old thread it is because I said that if I every played an arcanist I would report back. Well about a year and a half later I have had the chance to get to level 10.
My experience(not theorycraft, actually playing)
Quick Study is highly over-rated in my actual gameplay experience like I thought it would be.
No, there was not a lot of divination and research which allowed me to choose the perfect spell. No, I didn't leave spell slots open, even though it is a strategy that I often suggest to others. I used this ability one time out of combat, and I never even cast the spell that got swapped in.
Even the ability that lets me teleport away is not as useful as I thought it would be. It was useful 1 time.
The ability to counterspell as an immediate action, and the exploit that lets me raise my caster level or the DC of a spell by 2 instead of 1 have been much more useful.
Conclusion: The player not the class(sorcerer, wizard, arcanist) will be bigger factor than which class is chosen. Assuming the players are equal all 3 classes start out pretty even. Eventually, the arcanist and wizard pull ahead as the game progresses, but that is not a surprise. The arcanist exploits are nice to have, but getting spells a level late is not a small thing either. There were times getting them earlier would have been very useful.
that's why the exploiter wizard is so awesome. Getting the exploits and the faster spell progression.
that's why the exploiter wizard is so awesome. Getting the exploits and the faster spell progression.
Unnecessary, OP and unthematic archetype.... was designed purely to stop the wizard crying about the arcanist.
Shaman as well.... poorly designed, thought out and ultimately OP. If they insisted on making it a hybrid class it should have been druid/witch. But to be honest the idea was perfectly set up for a spontaneous druid type base class.
that's why the exploiter wizard is so awesome. Getting the exploits and the faster spell progression.
Losing Arcane Bond AND Arcane School hurts real bad though.
Tough choice to be sure.
The arcane bond is tough to lose, and the exploiter wizard has a delayed progression. I think the exploiter wizard has a very slight edge over a normal wizard, but it is not enough to take someone who does ok with a wizard to breaking the game as a wizard.
Conclusion: The player not the class(sorcerer, wizard, arcanist) will be bigger factor than which class is chosen. Assuming the players are equal all 3 classes start out pretty even. Eventually, the arcanist and wizard pull ahead as the game progresses, but that is not a surprise. The arcanist exploits are nice to have, but getting spells a level late is not a small thing either. There were times getting them earlier would have been very useful.
I never thought the Arcanist was any more overpowered or broken than a Wizard. It struck me as a class with a lower skill ceiling, and a much higher floor, than the Wizard.
Well, although nobody has mentioned it so far, I think we all can agree that Divine Protection is too good, right?
Or are there people who seriously want to defend that feat? Y'know, without being tongue-in-cheek or drunk.
I'm usually drunk (look at my avatar), but, that aside, I see nothing wrong with it. Unless I've lost my ability to read, (a) it works only once per day, (b) you have to declare it before you even roll (unless you also have some other class feature), so it's wasted a lot of the time, and (c) it's only + Cha mod, not "automatic success."
Yeah, it can, in a best-case scenario, function as a single "get out of SOL free" card, but I'm not seeing that as being either game-breaking or OP or anything else of the sort. The fact that it's only defensive counts for something, too -- especially when you get into high levels when your friend the diviner is always winning initiative and SOLing the baddies, so that you hardly even need to make a save.
In all honesty, if you measured from the start of a campaign, you'd probably get the same total benefit from Iron Will or Great Fortitude or whatever, when taking into account that they're always active.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's because when the ACG Errata came out it was nuked from on high by the combined arsenal of all the gods, and only a smoking crater remains where the Feat once stood.
It used to be a flat "Charisma mod to all Saves all the time" Feat.
Which, for an Oracle, was pretty hefty.