1. A lot of the issues people have with full casters seem like they are dependent on having all the spells available all the time. Even a PF wizard has to choose which spells to memorize, and so theoretically being able to cast a "clear a social encounter" spell doesn't do any good if you haven't actually memorized it.
Well for clerics and druids, they get to pick from all the spells in their spell-list on any given day, so they essentially do that.
For wizards (and other spellbook casters), you don't need to have all the spells in the game in your spellbook, just the "best" (for a given value of best) and/or most-versatile ones.
With all my memorization casters, when trying to game the system (like I usually am), I build multiple spell memorization lists: one titled "In Town", one titled "Overland Travel", one titled "In dungeon", et cetera, each based on the types of generic situations and the types of encounters in those situations I generally run into in my campaigns. I know, for example, when I'm in town I generally need more charm, illusion, and non-lethal options because my DM usually screws us over if we go around indiscriminately killing people (as he should). I also usually know what kind of generic situation I'm going to be in on most game days. There are times when I pick the wrong spell list, but by including as many versatile/OP spells as I can, I can usually make do and get close enough to get the job done.
Starfinder goes even farther, in just flat out not using memorization at all, and putting a fairly hard cap on the number of different spells a spellcaster knows. So, no, a 9-level caster following those guidelines is not going to be able to Do Everything. They'll have to make hard choices, just like every other class.
The more I think about all this, the more I agree that it isn't high level spells, or even necessarily overpowered spells, that are the problem. The problem is memorization, especially among those that can (eventually or by default) essentially have access to every spell in every book. To use 3.5 optimization parlance, it's almost always the memorizers (clerics/druids/wizards) that are tier 0/tier 1, and the spontaneous casters (sorcerers/psions) that are (usually) tier 2/tier 3. I think as long as you fix the worst of the martial classes to bring them up to tier 3, and nerf, say sorcerers, a little bit (like make some of their 2nd's 3rd's or something) so they're tier 3, too, I think you can bring those full casters in with little issue. Especially with all the extant changes to gear/crafting and fixes like I see in a lot of the existing spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe let's take a step back - what is everyone looking for in 9th-level casters?
Personally, I like playing a battlefield control role, as I enjoy the tactical aspect of that. So, it would be interesting for me if there was a magical class that had more battlefield control spells. Right now we have slow, confusion, wall of force, and waves of fatigue on either Mystic or Technomancer lists, but not much else. So, I would appreciate a caster who has more access to environmental manipulation spells (things similar to web and create pit but modified for the setting.)
What is everyone else looking for in their casters?
I think Tarik is correct, as I know the reason I almost always play wizards is because of the challenge of building to get "infinite cosmic power." I rarely ever enjoy the game once I get that power, but for me there's a lot of fun in picking feats/spells/Prestige Classes/Gear trying to get to that point.
However, I'd certainly settle for being able to be a battle-field-control and/or blaster type caster with a wide variety of utility spells, even if they weren't 9th level casters. Like having casters that are balanced against Technomancers but have other distinct flavors (like Alchemists or Summoners in PF).
I'd also be very happy if they took Druids, with wild shape and other class features working effectively as is, from Pathfinder, replaced their spellcasting with Mystic Spellcasting, replaced their summons with a druid specific summoning list (elementals/animals/fey only), and put a caveat that they can only use archaic weapons/armor. I think wildshape is broken enough that they'd still be on the upper end of the power curve even with those nerfs.
I'm mean, really, I just want more classes/themes/archetypes and more (non-PC) monsters. I think those are the biggest two gaps in making this a game where one could play long term custom campaigns.
|
I have to admit, I'd like to have a character that was more based on the Arcanist, as an alternative to the Technomancer. But I'm not so sure that I really need 7-9 levels of spells. Nut it would sure be cool if there was certain ways to replicate certain 7-9 level spells under specific circumstances, like rituals and the like.
Personal Rant: Personally I think that simulacrum should have been done away as a spell and just have been a construct type template that was something a character could build. The rules are just so wonky and a kludge from the 1st edition of the game.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is everyone else looking for in their casters?
I want to play a character whose main thing is spellcasting. the 6 level progression just doesn't let you feel like a dedicated caster.
9th level casting isn't innately overpowered. As evidence I direct your attention to the 3.5 Healer class, which managed to score a power rating of 0.6 (less than 1) on a 1 to 10 scale when someone did an informal poll on the old WotC forums.
If you're not familiar with it, take a cleric, then strip away all non-healing spells from the spell list and take away armor, spontaneous casting and domains. I think as 9th level options the entire spell list was true resurrection and mass heal. Give it back some 1/day healing SLAs and a unicorn companion.
The existence of the healer shows that not only can 9th level classes not be overpoweringly strong, they can in fact be unbalanced the other way - unplayably weak.
I don't think the oracle is overpowered. Do other people think the oracle is OP? (Barring Heavens oracle color spray.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any reason not to stay within the 6 spell level framework we have now? They are many very powerful spells in the game now and most I think would agree that higher level spells would be fairly exclusive. There are many reasons not to create a 9/9 framework. To list a few: requires the creation and balancing of new spell lists, will create the problem of who's version of this spell is this item using, creates situations where one class' sversion of a spell is inherently better than another class's version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind seeing a class like the 5E warlock in SF. We effectively have the short rest/long rest system in SF, their mechanic of refreshing thier spellslots all day long might achieve the class fantasy of all day caster without allowing them to go nova on any one encounter.
Wouldn't even need to add 5E style cantrips. We have guns.
Is there any reason not to stay within the 6 spell level framework we have now? They are many very powerful spells in the game now and most I think would agree that higher level spells would be fairly exclusive. There are many reasons not to create a 9/9 framework. To list a few: requires the creation and balancing of new spell lists, will create the problem of who's version of this spell is this item using, creates situations where one class' sversion of a spell is inherently better than another class's version.
Slow spell progression can be a drag, especially since many games may never even make it to 7th level. If a player wants to focus exclusively on magic, I think there should be a fast-track option available.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing innate to 9th level casting per se that is desired, instead, at least for me, the desire is to have a class where magic is the main focus, whereas right now both mystic and technomancer split their attention.
In universe, several hundred years ago, barely literate primitives waving around sticks and dung managed incredible feats of magic. Where's my character that can outdo them, using all the advancement of the intervening centuries?
If the six levels are a key balance (or if in universe there is a reason magic is "harder"), then I'd picture a magic focused character like this (this is probably quite unbalanced, but this would be the flavor I'd be going for):
Warlock, focus on taking all approaches to developing their magical ability, often to the detriment of other abilities.
Key Stat: Int
3/4 BAB, but no inherent weapon proficiency. This removes the need to perform other gymnastics to make spell targeting viable, while not giving them the same weapon damage as Mystic and Technomancer. If a warlock choses to spend two feats into getting their small arms proficiency and weapon specialization, that's a reasonable cost. A warlock being restricted to Analog weapons would also be a good compromise (the logic being that while channelling magical energies, they cause technological items in their hands [and only in their hands] to short out).
Spell List, pretty much the entirety of both spell lists. Maybe a couple exceptions.
Spell Progression: New level of spells every odd level (reaching level 6 at level 11).
Known spells and spells per day: top out at 10 spells known 1-4, 8 5-6, and 8 spells per day (before bonuses) across all levels. Specific progression scaled.
At level 12, the Warlock gains a spell synthesis ability similar to the Mystic Theurge. The Warlock can cast two spells who's combined level is not greater than their Warlock level -8. E.G. at level 12, a Warlock can cast two level two spells, a level three and level one, or two level one spells. At level 20, they could cast two level 6 spells (or any other combination).
And pretty much no other class abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3/4 BAB, but no inherent weapon proficiency.
Even pathfinder Wizards have Simple Weapons. For starfinder the equivalent is Small Arms and Simple Melee.
And pretty much no other class abilities.
Then what would they give up for Archetypes?
I just...don't see what that brings to the table that Technomancers and Mystics don't. As Technomancers are actually BETTER at blasting spells than that class (Since they can get semi-spec for combat spells) and Mystics are BETTER at mind control spells (Since they get the ability to wipe people's minds that they were used). Both of those classes are already very, very much spellcasting focused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a "Manipulator" class that controls the physical environment. Maybe it doesn't have to be a 9th-level caster, but I'd have it focus on casting rather than getting your hands dirty with weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just...don't see what that brings to the table that Technomancers and Mystics don't. As Technomancers are actually BETTER at blasting spells than that class (Since they can get semi-spec for combat spells) and Mystics are BETTER at mind control spells (Since they get the ability to wipe people's minds that they were used). Both of those classes are already very, very much spellcasting focused.
Saying they are spellcasting focussed is like saying a bard or magus is. A level 10 Tech/Mystic (without bonus spells) can cast 14 spells per day. A level 10 Wizard can cast 20, a level 20 sorcerer 26!
They are hybrid classes. If you take their magic away, do they suffer? Yup. Can they still do stuff. Yup. A magic focussed class is supposed to be miserable without their magic, just like a soldier would be miserable if they couldn't attack.
And Wizards don't get simple weapon proficiency. They get like 5 specific weapons and 1/2 BAB. Removing all default weapon proficiencies is the counter for giving them 3/4 BAB for the purpose of spell targeting. If you gave them simple arms and melee and 3/4 BAB they would be just as good at non-magical combat (under normal circumstances) as Tech/Mystics.
Saying they are spellcasting focussed is like saying a bard or magus is. A level 10 Tech/Mystic (without bonus spells) can cast 14 spells per day. A level 10 Wizard can cast 20, a level 20 sorcerer 26!
Classes that...don't exist in Starfinder. A Technomancer or Mystic without spells is utterly miserable as basically every ability they have is about spellcasting.
My bad on the wizard thing though, Sorcerers are the ones with simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is also telling that one of the most common suggestions for technomancer and mystics is to take longorms or sniper proficiency. They are nearly as effective at fighting as several other classes and can be by taking a couple of feats. You never tell a wizard it' a great idea to spend feats on weapon proficiency. Technomancers and mystics really are hybrid classes not pure casters. People want pure casters. So create it, just don't let it break the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is also telling that one of the most common suggestions for technomancer and mystics is to take longorms or sniper proficiency. They are nearly as effective at fighting as several other classes and can be by taking a couple of feats. You never tell a wizard it' a great idea to spend feats on weapon proficiency. Technomancers and mystics really are hybrid classes not pure casters. People want pure casters. So create it, just don't let it break the game.
You don't tell a wizard that because in PF, a single longbow shot is a waste of an action. Combat math is based around iterative attacks. Starfinder is based around fewer but harder hitting attacks. You'd have to break assumptions of the system pretty badly (1/2 BAB, no archaic only-weapon proficiency, and no weapon specialization for a start) to not make it worth the SF wizard spending the same couple of feats to do the same weapon damage as a mystic or technomancer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the starting wizard should have 1/2 BAB. Also in the conversion guidlines they say if you had a limited subset of weapons to chose something limited for the converted character. So something like analog basic and small arms might be appropriate. With a 1/2 BAB and limited proficwnties I'd probably suggest the character in question to grab sniper proficiency as they will never be full attacking, and sniper prificency doesn't have any pre requisites. Still it wouldn't be a great idea as they just wouldn't have the ability to hit very often. I do agree that the gap wouldn't be as bad as it was in pathfinder, but it would still be huge. Which is why any pure caster class should have something they can do ven when they don't have spell slots to burn. Eternal spell is a great example of something a technomancer can chose to give them a basic backup. For a pure caster something like that would be appropriate. Perhaps make it a chosen class ability so there's still some reason to grab a gun besides automatic zones, but it would be a choice almost every non multiclass pure caster would take. Sorry I know I'm rambling, but does that make sense?
And what would you make them spend that money they don't spend on a weapon on? Unlike D&D 4e, spellcasters don't need implements. You'd also have the issue that they'd be basically unable to hit EAC with attack spells so they'd be a pure support caster.
I just don't really see what it adds that a technomancer doesn't. The technomancer makes such a good sniper because they have a SPELL that really rewards a single big hit with a standard action like the Mechanic and they are already almost entirely spell based despite the 3/4 BAB (And 1/2 BAB wouldn't be functional with spells).
That and 'What would 7-9 spells ADD'. Most spells are balanced around the fact you can prepare them in 'up to level 6' slots. They'd scale too far if you made them go further than that.
You'd also have the issue that non-combat spells in 7-9 slots would make an utter mockery of what the Mechanic, Envoy and Operative can do, and those three are the big non-combat classes.
I really, REALLY don't want to see 'Well, I could play a non-combat class...but spell are better than skills'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That and 'What would 7-9 spells ADD'. Most spells are balanced around the fact you can prepare them in 'up to level 6' slots. They'd scale too far if you made them go further than that.
You'd also have the issue that non-combat spells in 7-9 slots would make an utter mockery of what the Mechanic, Envoy and Operative can do, and those three are the big non-combat classes.
I really, REALLY don't want to see 'Well, I could play a non-combat class...but spell are better than skills'.
To be fair, Baggageboy isn't pushing for 9th level casting, just a pure spellcaster. They're fine with the level 6 framework.
That said:
I believe the starting wizard should have 1/2 BAB. Also in the conversion guidlines they say if you had a limited subset of weapons to chose something limited for the converted character. So something like analog basic and small arms might be appropriate. With a 1/2 BAB and limited proficwnties I'd probably suggest the character in question to grab sniper proficiency as they will never be full attacking, and sniper prificency doesn't have any pre requisites. Still it wouldn't be a great idea as they just wouldn't have the ability to hit very often. I do agree that the gap wouldn't be as bad as it was in pathfinder, but it would still be huge. Which is why any pure caster class should have something they can do ven when they don't have spell slots to burn. Eternal spell is a great example of something a technomancer can chose to give them a basic backup. For a pure caster something like that would be appropriate. Perhaps make it a chosen class ability so there's still some reason to grab a gun besides automatic zones, but it would be a choice almost every non multiclass pure caster would take. Sorry I know I'm rambling, but does that make sense?
It makes sense in that I understand what you'd like to see, especially taking your other posts in this thread into consideration. But i don't see a way to achieve your goal of "caster, balanced by near uselesssness outside of that casting" without also hitting other players fears of "no one else needs to bother, the space-wizard can fix it." Combat is one thing, but in non-combat if the space-wizard (SW) can't rely on her skills or non-spell class abilities to help her, she needs spells. Spells that replace skill checks. Which means we're right back to pissing off the envoys and operatives.
It cant even be "almost as good but not as good as a specialist" because space-combat and hacking, to name a couple important situations, are balanced around specialists. If the captain has to bail you out every round anyways, why did you burn that spell slot to try and up your piloting skill? And if your spell DOES make you as good at piloting, computer checking, or engineering as the folks that have spent years putting in the time to learn it, or gods forbid your at-whim spell makes you BETTER than the non-casters at their own speciality, the other players in your party might want t a word with the DM.
I will say that eternal spell *can* be used by our SW, maybe even empowered, but I don't think we can offer it at much lower level than 11. I mean, number 1, lets not piss off the technomancers, but number 2, when they get it you're able to match the dpr of using jolting surge every round with a baton anyways (adjusting for specialization), and soldiers can far outdamage you. With that logic though, I don't see why we can't allow other damage spells to be made eternal at higher levels. An at-will arcing surge seems impressive, but check out what a level 15 plasma rifle can do (with albeit half the range).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difficulty of balancing spells against other classes is why I've pushed for something that stays within the 6/6 framework. Those spells are already balanced against the other classes as long as your pure caster only has those spells to choose from balancing should be achivable.
Magic will always be something that has the chance of pissing off someone else outside of combat because it can do things that don't make sense. There doesn' have to be a justification for why or how a spell works, it just does cause magic. That being said the mystics and Technomancers don't seem to be upsetting anyone. So why couldn't a pure caster trade some of the good things about those classes that is not casting focussed for some things that are good and are casting focused? I do not think the God spells are a good idea to have, but slightly earlier spell access, a few more castings per day and spells known, and class features that you can chose instead of hacks/connection wouldn't be unbalanced on their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I already outlined the difficulty in making a pure caster work in SF, even within a 6 level spell framework, so I'm not sure reiterating my earlier points will add anything to the conversation.
But I'll try once more. You want a character who can solve problems using only spells. Presumably, a wide variety of problems in a wide variety of settings, because otherwise they're unbalanced to the tier 6 end of things. But being able to solve a variety of problems purely via spells is one of the primary ways tier 1 casters are criticized as being unbalanced. There's not much of an in-between here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I already outlined the difficulty in making a pure caster work in SF, even within a 6 level spell framework, so I'm not sure reiterating my earlier points will add anything to the conversation.
But I'll try once more. You want a character who can solve problems using only spells. Presumably, a wide variety of problems in a wide variety of settings, because otherwise they're unbalanced to the tier 6 end of things. But being able to solve a variety of problems purely via spells is one of the primary ways tier 1 casters are criticized as being unbalanced. There's not much of an in-between here.
I think that's just crazy. Each class can have its own niche without invading the niche of the others.
I want a caster that can cast spells like create pit and wall of stone and tar pool without waiting my whole career to do it. I don't need niche-invasion spells like invisibility and detect secret doors and calm emotions, I just want to stick to a role, and not be forced to use a gun just to maintain viability.
That's really not impossible.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, if Starfinder sticks with the "all spontaneous casters" system, which I think would be a good plan either way, that really cuts down of the versatility of a full caster. Why in the world would I spend a valuable known spell slot on something that another party member can do for free, should such an option even exist?
A sorcerer who takes knock as a spell known when someone else in the party is maxing Disable Device is not just being a jerk, they are being a bad sorcerer.
Also, if you feel they need a money sink because they won't be buying weapons (possible, I admit), just give them something like Solarian weapon crystals that they'll want to spend the cash on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ Exactly. Just because you solve problems with magic as opposed to skills as long as you can' solve every problem it's ok. I think most casters should be spontaneous. Perhaps you could have memorized, but limit the spells available and castings, but that is much harder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree the money sink argument isn't really valid, at least assuming the developers don't just port over the classes as is. All you have to do is give them something necessary in the same way that guns/armor are necessary for everyone else, that they have to spend money on that scales in the same way.
I know 4e is the devil incarnate, but there's no reason they couldn't implement something like the focuses they used over there. Want to cast a 9th level meteor swarm? Well you better have a 17th level staff of evocations handy. It's not DnD/PF at that point (to me), but seriously, this already isn't DnD/PF.
Even though I love playing them, it's really just clerics/druids/wizards (and archivists/erudites/artificers in 3.5) that are actually borked. While certain sorcerer builds are broken (and a handful of sorcerer spells are), the class itself has never been the one anyone in any group I played with worried about (unless someone decided to play a kobold). I don't think it would break the game to port them over with some minor tweaks both to the class and to the handful of OP spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree the money sink argument isn't really valid, at least assuming the developers don't just port over the classes as is. All you have to do is give them something necessary in the same way that guns/armor are necessary for everyone else, that they have to spend money on that scales in the same way.
I know 4e is the devil incarnate, but there's no reason they couldn't implement something like the focuses they used over there. Want to cast a 9th level meteor swarm? Well you better have a 17th level staff of evocations handy. It's not DnD/PF at that point (to me), but seriously, this already isn't DnD/PF.
Even though I love playing them, it's really just clerics/druids/wizards (and archivists/erudites/artificers in 3.5) that are actually borked. While certain sorcerer builds are broken (and a handful of sorcerer spells are), the class itself has never been the one anyone in any group I played with worried about (unless someone decided to play a kobold). I don't think it would break the game to port them over with some minor tweaks both to the class and to the handful of OP spells.
Many PF spells have expensive focus components (scrying, legend lore, augury, etc.)
And I agree, not a lot of people talk about "broken sorcerers" or "broken oracles" (unless discussing paragon surge shenanigans.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, we always called Oracles "Clerics in gimp suits".
The only way I could see it working is not as a ninth-level caster, but as a Magic-focused class. 6th level spellcasting with 1/2 BAB, with class features focusing on helping those spells -but no tech allowed, like with druids and metal
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you would need to completely exclude tech, but otherwise I agree. Also it would be important for the caster class to still require dex or strength as an attack stat. They need to invest in stays like a normal character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I strongly disagree that excluding tech is necessary or even desirable, if you wanted to design such a class feature then the oracle's Wrecker curse would be a good template.
The destructive power of the Abyss and its teeming hordes of demons seeps from your very pores and into your belongings and surroundings.
Effect:
Held objects gain the broken condition when you use or equip them but regain their actual condition if employed by anyone else. If a held item is restored to unbroken condition, it becomes broken again the following round. Disable Device becomes a class skill for you and you can make Disable Device checks to destroy non-magical traps as a move action without the need to use tools or take any action beyond simply touching it.
At 5th level, whenever you attempt to damage an object with a melee attack, reduce its hardness by an amount equal to your oracle level before determining the damage you deal with that attack.
At 10th level, any attacks you make against objects and constructs automatically bypass any damage reduction they may possess except epic.
At 15th level, whenever you are dealt damage by an attack with a manufactured weapon, you can require the weapon’s wielder to make a Reflex save (DC 10 +1/2 your oracle level + your Charisma modifier) to avoid having the weapon collapse into dust immediately after striking you (magical weapons receive an additional saving throw against this effect).
The no tech thing was just to help make it feel different from the Technomancer. Perhaps no weapon Proficiency to start would be more appropriate, ad well as no automatic weapon specialization at 3rd.
Though I disagree strongly that no tech is a kick in the face or a good way to make no one in-game care about you. I think it's quite flavorfull, especially given the other 2 casting classes being about balancing your weapon abilities and your casting.
Edit::though I do like he wrecker thing. Bunlink when it comes to tech is fun, and having that much magic interfering with tech Dresden style could be fun too.
The no tech thing was just to help make it feel different from the Technomancer. Perhaps no weapon Proficiency to start would be more appropriate, ad well as no automatic weapon specialization at 3rd.
Though I disagree strongly that no tech is a kick in the face or a good way to make no one in-game care about you. I think it's quite flavorfull, especially given the other 2 casting classes being about balancing your weapon abilities and your casting.
Edit::though I do like he wrecker thing. Bunlink when it comes to tech is fun, and having that much magic interfering with tech Dresden style could be fun too.
Just pointing out that we don't need to guess about this. There's an ingame faction of magic users that disdain tech and study pure magic in an attempt to recreate the magics of golarian. Most people do indeed think they're cranks, but because they also happen to produce breakthroughs from their study, the crank ranks are growing. They're called "esotericists" and they're associated with the Arcanamirium on Absolam Station.
That's more or less the sum of what has bee revealed so far, but I would be highly surprised if they aren't spun out into at least a theme, but possibly even a class, archetype, and/or faction. Eventually anyways.
I'm a little curious why you'd describe a mystic as balancing their weapon abilities with casting. To my knowledge, besides weapon specialization which everyone gets, none of their abilities interact with weapon use at all.
Mystic is 3/4 BAB, along with getting Weapon Specialization.
Many spells require no attack roll. Looking at the Technomancer list, almost all offensive spells don't target EAC - explosive blast, slow, corrosive haze, and dispel magic for example don't care about BAB.
The 1/2 BAB needs to be offset for spells or your pure caster isn't better at it's schtick than the hybrid technomancer and mystic classes, in fact it's worse...
Why would I even want to make attack rolls? I've played wizards where I could probably count on one hand the number of times I rolled to hit.
What I'm asking for is battlefield control.
Yes, but you aren't the only one who wants a pure caster and starfinder has set a precident that many blasty spells require an attack roll. You might not use that feature very much, but another player may. You want the class to be broad enough to be able to be played in more than one way.
The point is to make MORE classes that have different playstyles that aren't accommodated by the current class array.
Yes but a class should have choices. A one truck pony class isn't fun because then everyone who makes one has the same thing. If you look at the other classes we have now They are all fairly broad and allow for some major choices to be made. A battle field caster is a very narrow build. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to build one. I think it's defniniey something that should be able to be built. But you don't want it to be the ONLY way to build. So having a way to be a blaster, or something in between is important.
When using the pathfinder archetype system it was possible to build very tight classes. But starting is different. Embrace that, it doesn't hurt anyone if the class can do more things so long as there are reasonable limits.