I think it goes back to the idea of 'praise in public, punish in private'. Paizo can't officially state that some part of their product is poorly made due to the bad marketing effect that would have from casual customers who don't read everything posted. So they have to deal with such things in-house, behind NDAs. This of course does not mean they agree that some things are broken. I don't think they subscribe to the 'Timmy card' philosophy, and actually believe that most of what they put out is useable in all but the most optimized games. Because they aim for unoptimized games where the differences don't really come up.
Well... Yeah. No company likes to admit mistakes. Especially not when they can't easily fix it. The designers of electronic games can always say "Yeah, my bad. Here's the patch.", but Paizo can't really do that without fear of making people stop buying books without due to fear of having their investment made outdated in a few months due to errata. So their only alternative is prerend everything is perfectly designed and try to sneak alternatives to the flawed material under pretense that it's completely unrelated ("Why... No! The Slayer and Investigator are not Rogue replacements... They are their own thing...")
And Paizo might not intentionally subscribe to the "Timmy card" philosophy, but they are rather good at keeping it alive... Many options are so situational, underpowered and/or heavily taxed, that even if they can work, the player still has to invest so much to make it work that it feels like the system is punishing him for trying.
If they only care about balance in games with low system mastery/optimization, they are being very short-sighted. Players learn. And these days, with the internet everywhere, they learn really freaking fast. If they start seeing lots of problems once they start flexing their new-found system mastery muscles, they will feel disinclined to keep playing. I've seen it happen multiple times.
Two similar things is a different argument, but it may been more in-line with the current intent.There is not that much of a disparity in similar martial weapons because they all get the same bonus from strength. With the composite bows they get bonus to damage, while the crossbow does not. The bow also gets one additional attack. I think giving a normal xbow and extra attack or half dex to damage would make them better. I have not run any numbers.
Upon reflection I think my previous post was a bit of a mess (yay being tired) but at the moment I can't be bothered to fix it. With that said I'm not quite sure I follow your response here which is probably my fault because you were responding to my post which was poorly written, but totally sounded cooler and much clearer in my head.
Just to try to clear things up, if you think I'm disagreeing with you about crossbows being strictly worse that composite bows, I'm not. In fact I agree wholeheartedly. My initial statement above was just about Bolt Ace with Signature Deed in particular being able to go toe to toe with composite bow users potentially. The second part was me just trying to say that daggers have some benefits over greatsword (finesse, concealable, can be used in a grapple), so it's not a strictly inferior weapon in the same way crossbow is to composite bow.
That is how I read it. Then I went on to say that I was reading the statements as "all weapons should be almost equally effective", but now I understand you as saying "similar" weapons should be close in terms of effectiveness.
Then I went on to explain whey the xbox and longbow are far apart, but martial weapons that are similar are not so far apart with regard to DPR.
I'll never understand the 20 foot pole treatment of summoners by this board or Paizo themselves.
It varies by person. Some don't like it because of all the rules exceptions. Some think it is to easy to optimize. Some have seen the rules confusion bring about builds that were not legal and cause problems at the table, and the list goes on.
I think the eidolon needs to be redone, and that way the "you can't share magic items" rule which is only there as a balancing act can be done away with.
The summoner can also summon a lot, and summoning is a powerful thing. I personally like summoning, but the minute per level is a long time if the GM does not magically wave time away while you are in dungeon. You can easily overwhelm encounters unless the GM specifically goes out of his way to modify things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[ooc]Everyone plays the game differently, and longevity of play history doesn't necessarily disprove or make someone else's experiences or opinions invalid.
+1
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like that the content being released is fairly modular...in that the things in a given book are similarly themed.So it's easier to take it or leave it.
For instance,The ACG was the first hard back book of non-golarion specific crunch that I decided not to buy.Mostly because I like to encourage players to multi-class.
I also disliked the way alot of ideas were implemented.I did notice that I disliked everything in it roughly the same amount.So I was able to forgo all of it without feeling too bad.
A lot of people really liked the ACG. They probably liked it for much the same reason I didn't. That means they were the target audience for that book.So it was filled with stuff that appealed to their sensibilities.
I absolutely love the Monster codex and can't wait to buy it.I'm sure there are many who don't like the idea and would have preferred a normal bestiary.
Keep it coming.
Players only need to know what they want to know (and all of the basic rules and stuff).
I'm sure this has been reiterated many times over the thread, yeah, yeah.
I will 'correct' you a little: Players only need to know what they want AND 'need', guidelines and well defined paths (and branching) are useful.
I've seen (and heard far more reports of) games where certain characters rarely had the chance to make any contribution in or out combat because the other characters were so much more combat optimized and managed to cover all the out of combat stuff better. Or that they couldn't survive if the GM turned the dial up to challenge the other uber-characters.
You're not in competition with them, but if you're wondering why you bothered to show up, you're not really "viable".
That tells me that the GM is essentially running a wargame with some roleplaying aspects thrown on top of it, and isn't being very creative when it comes to the types of combat encounters that happen.
If combat takes up most of the game time, and is more or less done in an open field (or large room, or whatever) situation, then certain classes will always do better. That's a pretty limited way to run a game, though. Why not just play an MMO or other type of video game instead?
That Wizards can do almost 90% of what the other classes can do, only better is a factual statements.
Wizards are great at sneakiness, melee fighting, healing, stalking, social interaction with PCs, etc.? Doing damage in combat is only a small part of a well-rounded game.
Most people are usually not bothered about realism... They are, however, often bored by "selective realism" (Where one player can make reality cry all he wants, while other is tied to what a fit person can reasonably do) and "inappropriate realism" (where completely unrealistic aspects of the game are expected to be realist: e.g.: The Demon-hunting, dragon-slaying 20th level Fighter who can't jump 20ft in the air without someone crying foul).
Exactly. Inconsistent levels of realism are what bother me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That Wizards can do almost 90% of what the other classes can do, only better is a factual statements.Wizards are great at sneakiness, melee fighting, healing, stalking, social interaction with PCs, etc.? Doing damage in combat is only a small part of a well-rounded game.
Sneakiness - Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, magical disguises and other illusions
Fighting - Summon Monster for disposable fighters
Healing - Iffy, but there is always Infernal Healing and the Greater version. I'd bet at least one Summon Monster could act as a heal stick in some capacity
Social Interaction - There's always charms and dominates or just max ranks in diplomacy. Or you could do a minimal investment. There's also a trait to make social skills intelligence based and combined with a trait to make diplomacy a class skill you are actually doing rather well. If your game doesn't use traits by default then you are forced to spend one feat (Extra Traits) to be a good face character.
That aside no one says Wizards are good because they do damage. It's all about that battlefield control. Blasters are generally considered "weak" unless you are talking optimizing for Dazing Spell... but that's back into control territory.
That Wizards can do almost 90% of what the other classes can do, only better is a factual statements.Wizards are great at sneakiness, melee fighting, healing, stalking, social interaction with PCs, etc.? Doing damage in combat is only a small part of a well-rounded game.
Wizard
Sneaky- Disguise self, invisibility,
Movement- teleport, overland flight, fly, ethereal jaunt
Fighting- dazing spell, force cage, stinking cloud, glitterdust
Social- Adoration, Eagle's splendor, charm spells, utter contempt, Unconscious Agenda
None of these things are damage. Damage is actually the only field wizards aren't among the very best options for.
Fighters types meanwhile only have damage or combat maneuvers, which were nerfed from 3.5 for no reason.
True. Really can anyone present a potential play situation wherein a fighter is a better person for the job than a wizard? Even assuming that the wizard has no feats and just spells that he would reasonably prepare in a normal day, not hyper specialized ones.
What level are we talking about? Are we assuming that the wizard hasn't used any of his/her spells that day?
Level 9 is the easiest point to demonstrate this, though level 7 works too. The wizard has used an number spell slots equivalent to the fighter's current hit points.
I'm concerned about the introduction of new classes so soon after the release of the ACG. I'm concerned that Pathfinder is become bloated and creating such a load of information that new players or GM's may feel the learning curve is too high to become vested in this system.
What are yall's thoughts? (Note: I'm not complaining just to complain, this is a real concern of mine and I would appreciate some honest discourse on the subject.)
Not concerned at all. Only the material the GM wants to use in his/her campaign should be made available. It is all about the GM easing new players into the system rather than allowing an 'open content' approach and basically telling players 'have at it what you will'.
Just because there are so many much information to use, that doesn't mean it has to be used. It should always be at the discretion of the GM/players.
That Wizards can do almost 90% of what the other classes can do, only better is a factual statements.Wizards are great at sneakiness, melee fighting, healing, stalking, social interaction with PCs, etc.? Doing damage in combat is only a small part of a well-rounded game.Wizard
Sneaky- Disguise self, invisibility,
Movement- teleport, overland flight, fly, ethereal jaunt
Fighting- dazing spell, force cage, stinking cloud, glitterdust
Social- Adoration, Eagle's splendor, charm spells, utter contempt, Unconscious AgendaNone of these things are damage. Damage is actually the only field wizards aren't among the very best options for.
Fighters types meanwhile only have damage or combat maneuvers, which were nerfed from 3.5 for no reason.
And things like Knock (who need lockpicking/disable device), and countless other x skill is useless spells, spells that pretty much act like y class ability...
or just the fact that Wizards are used as solo final bosses, but most other classes aren't.
I'm concerned about the introduction of new classes so soon after the release of the ACG. I'm concerned that Pathfinder is become bloated and creating such a load of information that new players or GM's may feel the learning curve is too high to become vested in this system.
What are yall's thoughts? (Note: I'm not complaining just to complain, this is a real concern of mine and I would appreciate some honest discourse on the subject.)
Not concerned at all. Only the material the GM wants to use in his/her campaign should be made available. It is all about the GM easing new players into the system rather than allowing an 'open content' approach and basically telling players 'have at it what you will'.
Just because there are so many much information to use, that doesn't mean it has to be used. It should always be at the discretion of the GM/players.
PFS kinda being somewhat of an exeption here.
|
True. Really can anyone present a potential play situation wherein a fighter is a better person for the job than a wizard? Even assuming that the wizard has no feats and just spells that he would reasonably prepare in a normal day, not hyper specialized ones.
Having to interact with people who are suspicious of magic.
If it's just the actual observable casting of magic that makes them suspicious cast eagle's splendor and similar buff spells before you come in the room. If they have some manner of detecting magic that for some reason the culture considers kosher in a super double think way, then the wizard and fighter are on equal footing as neither class has any real benefits to diplomacy, bluff, or sense motive. Though as a side note the winner here is bard based solely on glibness allowing him to simply claim that he isn't using magic even if he plainly is.
It's not like you walk around with a sign on that says "I am a wizard".
If it's just the actual observable casting of magic that makes them suspicious cast eagle's splendor and similar buff spells before you come in the room. If they have some manner of detecting magic that for some reason the culture considers kosher in a super double think way, then the wizard and fighter are on equal footing as neither class has any real benefits to diplomacy, bluff, or sense motive. Though as a side note the winner here is bard based solely on glibness allowing him to simply claim that he isn't using magic even if he plainly is.
It's not like you walk around with a sign on that says "I am a wizard".
lack of obvious defensive gear? although one of the book came with a counter to that one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with Wizards being able to do everything ever, and better than everyone else, including other Wizards, is pretty much as old as the game - back in OD&D, Wizards were basically powerless for the first few levels, but then became powerhouses thereafter, up to the point that the made all other classes useless. This carried over to 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D, and therefore was basically a core issue even in 3rd edition. Lots of 7th-9th Level magic just trumps Martials because of how much those spells warp reality.
So, whenever I hear people complaining about Wizards making everything obsolete in Pathfinder, like Paizo somehow is responsible for this inequity of power, I just imagine all those "Thanks, Obama" memes.
The issue with Wizards being able to do everything ever, and better than everyone else, including other Wizards, is pretty much as old as the game - back in OD&D, Wizards were basically powerless for the first few levels, but then became powerhouses thereafter, up to the point that the made all other classes useless. This carried over to 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D, and therefore was basically a core issue even in 3rd edition. Lots of lv7+ magic just trumps Martials because of how much those spells warp reality.
So, whenever I hear people complaining about Wizards making everything obsolete in Pathfinder, like Paizo somehow is responsible for this inequity of power, I just imagine all those "Thanks, Obama" memes.
One of our problem in this topic is more with the people who pretend the problem doesn't exist, and those who only play Wizards anyway.
the problem 'we' have with Paizo is that each new books make the matter even worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with Wizards being able to do everything ever, and better than everyone else, including other Wizards, is pretty much as old as the game - back in OD&D, Wizards were basically powerless for the first few levels, but then became powerhouses thereafter, up to the point that the made all other classes useless. This carried over to 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D, and therefore was basically a core issue even in 3rd edition. Lots of lv7+ magic just trumps Martials because of how much those spells warp reality.
So, whenever I hear people complaining about Wizards making everything obsolete in Pathfinder, like Paizo somehow is responsible for this inequity of power, I just imagine all those "Thanks, Obama" memes.
One of our problem in this topic is more with the people who pretend the problem doesn't exist, and those who only play Wizards anyway.
the problem 'we' have with Paizo is that each new books make the matter even worse.
How, exactly, is it "worse"?
The best spells are still in the CRB
The Wizards' best options are in the CRB.
You could disallow every feat, trait, magic item, etc. used by Wizards in every book except the CRB, and the Wizard would still trump every other class.
If anything, all the stuff supposedly making the Wizard "worse" has done nothing to make the Wizard stronger, and instead made other classes better.
The problem of the Wizard Master Class DOES exist, but the only ways to make the Wizard truly balanced would be to completely nerf it and its spells, which would have ticked off more people than it would have sated (since lots of people like to play Wizards, but don't go ultra-munchkin with the class).
It was an unwinnable situation, and the way that seems to have worked best with dealing with it is to have more options for other classes, as well as interesting other classes, that are more-balanced by default.
Considering how many people actually like playing the other 20-some classes, I'd say that was a fair success.
The issue with Wizards being able to do everything ever, and better than everyone else, including other Wizards, is pretty much as old as the game - back in OD&D, Wizards were basically powerless for the first few levels, but then became powerhouses thereafter, up to the point that the made all other classes useless. This carried over to 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D, and therefore was basically a core issue even in 3rd edition. Lots of lv7+ magic just trumps Martials because of how much those spells warp reality.
So, whenever I hear people complaining about Wizards making everything obsolete in Pathfinder, like Paizo somehow is responsible for this inequity of power, I just imagine all those "Thanks, Obama" memes.
One of our problem in this topic is more with the people who pretend the problem doesn't exist, and those who only play Wizards anyway.
the problem 'we' have with Paizo is that each new books make the matter even worse.
How, exactly, is it "worse"?
The best spells are still in the CRB
The Wizards' best options are in the CRB.
You could disallow every feat, trait, magic item, etc. used by Wizards in every book except the CRB, and the Wizard would still trump every other class.
If anything, all the stuff supposedly making the Wizard "worse" has done nothing to make the Wizard stronger, and instead made other classes better.
I meant as: a new book with new classes comes out, of course the Wizard will get spells to make them irrelevent...
post your edit: probably doesn't help that these spell are in the same book as what they make irrelevent / near irrelevent.
There isn't much way to nerf the Wizard, that I will admit, but part of the 'wizard problem' is the fault of the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I meant as: a new book with new classes comes out, of course the Wizard will get spells to make them irrelevent...The issue with Wizards being able to do everything ever, and better than everyone else, including other Wizards, is pretty much as old as the game - back in OD&D, Wizards were basically powerless for the first few levels, but then became powerhouses thereafter, up to the point that the made all other classes useless. This carried over to 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D, and therefore was basically a core issue even in 3rd edition. Lots of lv7+ magic just trumps Martials because of how much those spells warp reality.
So, whenever I hear people complaining about Wizards making everything obsolete in Pathfinder, like Paizo somehow is responsible for this inequity of power, I just imagine all those "Thanks, Obama" memes.
One of our problem in this topic is more with the people who pretend the problem doesn't exist, and those who only play Wizards anyway.
the problem 'we' have with Paizo is that each new books make the matter even worse.
How, exactly, is it "worse"?
The best spells are still in the CRB
The Wizards' best options are in the CRB.
You could disallow every feat, trait, magic item, etc. used by Wizards in every book except the CRB, and the Wizard would still trump every other class.
If anything, all the stuff supposedly making the Wizard "worse" has done nothing to make the Wizard stronger, and instead made other classes better.
And again, you're missing the point:
The Wizard retroactively makes every other class irrelevant because the CRB exists.
Every class will be made "obsolete" the moment it's printed because the Wizard, using just CRB material, will do its job better than that class.
The Wizard basically just wins. Excepting the case of the Cleric and possibly the Arcanist, the Wizard just fills every class' role better because magic, and the only spells it needs to do that are in the CRB.
New spells are entirely irrelevant in new books as far as the Wizard is concerned. They're cute, but ultimately it'll get the job done with just the basics of the basics.
Mmmm, more hitdice.
There isn't much way to nerf the Wizard, that I will admit, but part of the 'wizard problem' is the fault of the GM.
Well, yes, that's true. It shouldn't be on the DM's shoulders to actively "balance" the Wizard, but that's a failing of the system from way, way back in the 1970s.
So, you can either be butthurt about an over-30-year-old issue that predates most players' lifespans and Pathfinder itself, you can play a Wizard that's far from optimal and thus be powerful but doesn't outshine every other player, or you can just effectively forget that the Wizard exists and go with other options - tons of players choose the latter two options, instead opting to play other classes which are more interesting and fit their character idea better, or play a kinda-general wizard that's not a walking Deus-Ex-Machina.
In a lot of ways, the Arcanist seems to be the answer to many people who wanted to play a "consummate scholar-mage", but didn't want to play a Wizard because it's "I Win: The Class," and the Sorcerer didn't quite fit, thematically (even IF you took the Sage bloodline).
I personally find the current version of occultist to be an acceptable alternative to wizard.
Personally i find the wizard problem came from AD&D and 3rd edition not OD&D. Before 3rd edition saves were static numbers that greatly increased with level, if you were attacked while casting a spell you automatically lost it and had no chance to roll a concentration check, fighters could move and still full attack, and many many more spells had long casting times.
I personally find the current version of occultist to be an acceptable alternative to wizard.
Personally i find the wizard problem came from AD&D and 3rd edition not OD&D. Before 3rd edition saves were static numbers that greatly increased with level, if you were attacked while casting a spell you automatically lost it and had no chance to roll a concentration check, fighters could move and still full attack, and many many more spells had long casting times.
I do remember Fly being a very vulnerable spell that required you to concentrate, and in many instances a mage couldn't both fly and cast at the same time (or levitate for that matter). Still, the world-warping powers of the Wizard classes did effectively make it such that a Wizard who couldn't win a fight simply caused it to end before the fight began.
Keep in mind, though, for newer players, when you refer to a fighter moving and making a "full attack", that a "full attack" was substantially less than a "full attack" these days.
Getting even two attacks in around without wielding two weapons was arduous.
You had 1.5 attacks from lv7-12 (so you could make 1 attack on round 1, 2 attacks on round 2, 1 attack on round 3, etc.)
It wasn't until you hit lv13+ that you could make 2 attacks in a round.
But, yeah, plenty of issues did come about in 3.0/3.5 - lots of spells getting faster casting times or other changes to make them stronger; the Cleric & Druid going from having a form a little more like the Inquisitor and Warpriest to the monsters that they became in 3.0...
But the main thing that Pathfinder tried to do was to allow players to keep using their 3.5 material without major problems, as opposed to other d20 systems which threw out compatibility with D&D 3.5 material, and thus didn't do as well.
Ironically, most players now don't actually USE the 3.5 material, instead sticking to purely-Pathfinder stuff (though it is nice to be able to port some older things into PF homegames or update your decade-old character to use once again), so really they probably COULD have gutted the Wizard and published something less munchkiny, but, like I said, this may have angered more people than it would have pleased, so they kinda had to go with what existed instead.
Well, "faster casting times" itself is kinda misleading.
It used to be that casting spells affected initiative, since codified Actions didn't exist, nor did Attacks of Opportunity.
Basically, if you were a Wizard and wanted to cast a spell, say Web, you began casting the spell on your Initiative (let's say Init 18), and finished it when the spell was denoted (2 clicks of the Initiative later, or Init 16). If a Fighter that was within attacking distance of you had Init 17, he could charge up and attack you before your spell was completed, and ruin your spellcasting.
AoO's actually, in theory, make interrupting casting more common, though with the Concentration check a thing now, it should be about the same success rate of fizzling a spell as in 1st and 2nd ed.
2 attacks at full BAB at level 13 is better than 3 attacks one of which has a 25% miss chance and the other has a 50% miss chance. Especially given increased mobility. It also made dual wielding and weapon focus, which gave you extra attacks and special abilities instead of a +1, much better.
Also without combat patrol (which is an excellent feat that helps balance) AoO are not equivalent to attacking a wizard mid initiative, because the former takes agency away from the attacker's hands and puts it into the wizard's.
I like SpyCraft's & FantasyCraft's system of combat as an alternate to 3.5/Pathfinder's:
Standard Attacks are classified as Half Actions. You can naturally make only 1 attack per Half-Action (2 if you're wielding 2 weapons). You never gain more iterative attacks as you level.
However, as the name suggests, you get 2 Half Actions in a Round, so from level 1, you can make up to 2 Standard Attacks each round (4 total attacks with TWF). Obviously, effects like Speed allow you to make ONE more attack (for a total of 5), but Armor is also DR, and every class gets an AC Bonus, so it's harder to do damage to non-Mook characters.
It kinda combines the best of both worlds - multiple attacks per round without TWF, all at full BAB (but -5 per attack for TWF, though it's not limited to light weapons; any weapons which are one-handed are applicable), yet cuts down on the Rocket-Tag-ness of multiple attacks at high levels.
---
Spells, by the way, are special Half-Actions that can only be performed once per round, but spellcasting is a lot more... involved in that system, as well.
The issue with Wizards being able to do everything ever, and better than everyone else, including other Wizards, is pretty much as old as the game - back in OD&D, Wizards were basically powerless for the first few levels, but then became powerhouses thereafter, up to the point that the made all other classes useless. This carried over to 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D, and therefore was basically a core issue even in 3rd edition. Lots of 7th-9th Level magic just trumps Martials because of how much those spells warp reality.
So, whenever I hear people complaining about Wizards making everything obsolete in Pathfinder, like Paizo somehow is responsible for this inequity of power, I just imagine all those "Thanks, Obama" memes.
This was true, but only at the highest levels. I saw in 3.5 it continues at say level 18, where casters get 9th level spells.
I have not seen it in PF yet, but we only got up to level 15 so far.
That Wizard totally dominate the end-game isn't debatable.
The Wizard ability to overshadow everyone else is aquired and increase by level, and yes, Just the CRB have enough option for it.
I will clarify an earlier statement: the APG introduced classes that could 'compete' with the CRB Wizard for a bit longer than the other CRB classes, the APG then introduce more Wizard spells that made the previous point obsolete.
(by compete with the CRB Wizard, I oviously mean at lower levels, sometime to around 'mid' levels).
that Happen with the rest of the rulebooks.
A bestiary introduce something that can give the Wizard problems, the next rulebook will have new Wizard spells and options around that, the other classes, a new feat chain or two.
I know the Point was compatibility with 3.X/3.5, but...
Wizards are highly overpowered. and generally, i ban them in favor of the arcanist because the arcanist is less of a headache.
Part of it is the shear number of spells known - having a limitless portfolio of spells available means that the Wizard can have an answer for every situation, even if that answer is "teleport to John Carter's version of Mars" or "let's just hop into Elysium for a few hours while we figure out how to deal with the enemy"
It also has a new arsenal every day, or can just reserve slots to study spells on-the-fly.
Being able to quick-study the exact spell you need in the safety of the Halls of Valhalla while your enemy wonders where you are before you jump back and wreck his day but good is... unbelievably powerful to say the least.
It also draws from the largest spell list of any class.
The Cleric/Oracle, Shaman, Witch, and Druid are wee bit more magically balanced because they draw from smaller pools of Spells.
The Sorcerer is permanently stuck with whatever spells it knows - no on-the-fly preparation; you just know what you know and have to hope that's enough.
The Arcanist learns to cast spells at the growth-rate of a Sorcerer and only has spells-per-day as a Wizard. They do get the versatility of a Wizard, but can only prepare a very few number of Spells Known each day, so they have fewer physical spells at their disposal for spamming than a Sorcerer and cast fewer spells per day than a Sor. The trade-off is the versatility angle again, but a metric BUTT-load of non-spell abilities.
All in all, the Arcanist is just a much more balanced Wizard. It's about on the same level of power as, say, a Cleric or Druid, meaning it's still one of the most potent little buggers out there, but not the "A GOD AM I" class that the Wizard is.
---
It IS also the shear number of reality-breaking abilities of the Wizard that make it ungodly.
Wizards learn to teleport, create demiplanes, tear open the fabric of time & space... stuff that just doesn't mesh with every other class in the game.
Classes like the Magus, Bard, Warpriest, Inquisitor, etc. - the 3/4 BAB, 6/9 spellcasters - are much more in-line with your typical Martials in terms of power. They're still at a slight advantage, but not like the full casters whom, through non-Epic spells, are able to do things you'd typically only prescribe to gods in most forms of fiction.
---
So, it's a combination of Powerful Class + Vast Number of Spells + Powerful Spells.
It is, but the Witch, Oracle, Sorcerer, Shaman, and (I can't believe I'm saying this after playing 3.5 for years) the Druid are generally more balanced because their spell lists are more greatly limited in one way or another, and more thematic (well, not the Sorcerer, but it's limited because it has Spells Known).
That said, yes, full casters are pretty significantly more powerful than other classes.
SR, energy resistance, high Saves, or just straight up magic Immunity are common in high-CR encounters, and are supposed to offset the 7th Level+ spells, but spells like Time Stop, Plane Shift etc. kinda throw a wrench into those plans if the DM isn't careful.
In retrospect, those spells never should have existed in the first place, but those are leave-overs from way, way back in the game's history, and getting rid of them would've been really hard for both WOTC and Paizo.
I'd say Arcanists are almost as overpowered as Wizards. And just as much once they reach 18th level. And their capstone ability is really freaking powerful.
Sure, thy get their spells a level later, but they still have access to all their spells, thr best spell list in the game and really powerful exploits (which allow them to, among other things, change their prepared spells kn the fly or increase the CL and DC of the spell by +2). They are an unbalanced and unnecessary class that should have been an alternate casting system at most.
Honestly, from a balance perspective, Arcanists are of the most poorly designed classes in the game. And much like Hunters, it doesn't really allow any character concept that wasn't already possible to create.