|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first impression of the eldritch archer is quite negative.
I dislike the late entry - level 6 at the earliest, so you aren't getting your core concept-enabling feature until late. If you get in at level 6, you aren't actually a spell-casting class, since you need to be expert in bows. Classes that can get in at 6 will have very limited casting (cantrips from feats or some focus spells from class).
So non-casters getting in have casting ranging from 'limited' to 'garbage' depending on entry. You can get more casting in-archetype, but basic casting at level 8 is 4 levels past just grabbing casting from another archetype. You can't get another dedication in before 6th either, not enough feats, so you are stuck with whatever you can get in-class or from ancestry for a long time.
Most casters don't get expert in any weapons until late (11th level, mostly), so you don't start Eldritch Archer until 12th. You have lost more than half the game at this point and despite the increased max level of APGs, a lot of games still aren't going to hit this point.
Warpriest with a deity that favors bows is probably your best bet, getting you started at 8th, though I am not sure how many cleric spells are really good with it without digging a bit.
Magic arrow at 8th is nice, but is competing with getting actual spells on a martial entry and the limit to 4th level items means you mostly use it for utility stuff since the DCs of anything with a save will be worthless.
I fear the design of this archetype creates a very undesirable bench-mark for future magus/gish/spellblade type materials. Anything that gives a similar spell-strike type mechanic will be compared to this one, so designers will be inclined to force late entry. This makes playing such a character far more difficult that I would like, turning a popular archetype into a mid/late-game only option. Any material that grants a similar option earlier will be seen as power creep and elicit complaints of not being balanced against previous material (which would be true).
Note that I am not speaking against the limits to proficiency inherent in each class. I am fine with a fighter/eldritch archer never getting legendary spellcasting or a wizard eldritch archer not getting master in bows. That is inherent in the system. I just want concepts to be somewhat functional before mid-levels.
Am I missing something about this archetype?
I fear the design of this archetype creates a very undesirable bench-mark for future magus/gish/spellblade type materials. Anything that gives a similar spell-strike type mechanic will be compared to this one, so designers will be inclined to force late entry. This makes playing such a character far more difficult that I would like, turning a popular archetype into a mid/late-game only option. Any material that grants a similar option earlier will be seen as power creep and elicit complaints of not being balanced against previous material (which would be true).
Well, we'll see what plans they have for the Magus in a month. My bet is that they'll have Spellstrike by 1st or 2nd level, but if you want to multiclass into it you can't get it until 6th level, which would be in line with the Eldritch Archer (of course, we won't see dedications in the playtest, so this is long-term speculation).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that preventing caster classes from becoming Eldritch Archers early is... questionable, but it does seem in line with the whole edition as being martial oriented and simply ignoring casters.
However, if you look to it from a martial perspective, I consider Enchanting Arrow to be the thing. You're not casting a specific spell to imbue the arrow, but instead you are firing a magic imbued arrow. To me, that is the core Feat of the class.
[Given some other stuff I've seen for casters, I would honestly not be surprised that whoever was writing the class didn't realise caster classes literally cannot take it earlier]
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they had made eldritch archer more accessible and given a similar melee archetype, they wouldn't need a magus class. But sure, lets stick with the PF1 'add a class for everything' design.
No, Magus was a very popular class in P1 and plenty of people want to see it come back.
(Just gonna ignore that they turned Vigilante and Cavalier into Archetypes)
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eldritch Archer lives where it does, in my opinion, because it is a "prestige class". It's meant to be a high level archetype. And, interestingly, it is available at almost exactly the same levels in 2e as in 1e. A 1e Fighter will be able to take it starting at level 7, while a 1e Wizard will be able to take it starting at level 13.
The difference, of course, is that it isn't complete garbage in 2e.
If Eldritch Archer were trying to be Magus, I would be annoyed that it has a high level buy in. But the "you aren't actually an Eldritch Archer until 6th at the earliest and maybe 12" part doesn't bother me at all because it's completely in line with how the class appeared in 1e. An Eldritch Archer is not a base character concept - like most prestige classes it is something you "upgrade into" at a higher level.
I'm actually glad to see Paizo preserving that design for classes like Eldritch Archer and Shadowdancer, because it gives higher level characters a paradigm shift to be excited about. It also allows the dedications to be more powerful. Shadowdancer Dedication, for example, is an incredibly powerful feat, giving both a very powerful bonus to Stealth and also greater darkvision, even if you didn't have so much as low-light vision beforehand; it would be very overpowered at 2nd level.
|
|
I agree that preventing caster classes from becoming Eldritch Archers early is... questionable, but it does seem in line with the whole edition as being martial oriented and simply ignoring casters.
However, if you look to it from a martial perspective, I consider Enchanting Arrow to be the thing. You're not casting a specific spell to imbue the arrow, but instead you are firing a magic imbued arrow. To me, that is the core Feat of the class.
[Given some other stuff I've seen for casters, I would honestly not be surprised that whoever was writing the class didn't realise caster classes literally cannot take it earlier]
Enchanting arrow, its like power attack with stun on crit, but level 8 and useless against mindless creatures. Its not bad, but it doesn't seem worth taking an entire dedication for.
Enchanting arrow, its like power attack with stun on crit, but level 8 and useless against mindless creatures. Its not bad, but it doesn't seem worth taking an entire dedication for.
Mindless creatures are a very small subset of encounters. Also, there are precious few effects that apply Stunned and don't have Incapacitation.
If Magus has a ranged option and a melee option, then the Eldritch archer is going to be for people who don't want the magus playstyle or want to be the primary class they chose with some flavor into the melding. Or perhaps magus will be built around melee only, but their spell selection and martial capability will meld right into the Eldritch Archer making it the go to class for accessing EA quickly.
On the other hand - personally I will be disappointed if Magus and Eldritch Archer don't have good synergy. This seems like a very obvious combo.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bit about enchanting arrow was in response to NemoNoName, I should have included a quote to make that clear. (previous post edited to include quote)
As for the late entry preserving the old prestige class design, the late entry into arcane archer in PF1 was due to it being a D&D 3rd edition prestige class. Creating PF2 allows the design team to jettison unnecessary legacies.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's your opinion that it's an unnecessary legacy.
As I said - I'm quite glad that higher level archetypes still exist, and I would be disappointed if everything were available at level 2. It would limit the design space. Imagine how much weaker Shadowdancer Dedication would be if it had to be a level 2 feat.
|
|
Well, it's your opinion that it's an unnecessary legacy.
As I said - I'm quite glad that higher level archetypes still exist, and I would be disappointed if everything were available at level 2. It would limit the design space. Imagine how much weaker Shadowdancer Dedication would be if it had to be a level 2 feat.
I have made no comment on shadowdancer.If a mechanic needs to be level gated, gate it. Eldritch archer dedication, in my opinion, at its base dedication, does not need to be limited to level 6. Pushing things back just so they look like 3.0 would be a weak reason. I don't know that they had that in mind anyway.
Enchanting arrow, its like power attack with stun on crit, but level 8 and useless against mindless creatures. Its not bad, but it doesn't seem worth taking an entire dedication for.I agree that preventing caster classes from becoming Eldritch Archers early is... questionable, but it does seem in line with the whole edition as being martial oriented and simply ignoring casters.
However, if you look to it from a martial perspective, I consider Enchanting Arrow to be the thing. You're not casting a specific spell to imbue the arrow, but instead you are firing a magic imbued arrow. To me, that is the core Feat of the class.
[Given some other stuff I've seen for casters, I would honestly not be surprised that whoever was writing the class didn't realise caster classes literally cannot take it earlier]
Seems like really odd cherry picking right here. If I take the class, I might of course enjoy one feat over another, but generally people take a dedication because of a mix of powers and aesthetics. For me, the main attraction is the Magic Arrow ability and viper arrows, but it'd be silly to claim that's the only reason.
|
|
Seems like really odd cherry picking right here. If I take the class, I might of course enjoy one feat over another, but generally people take a dedication because of a mix of powers and aesthetics. For me, the main attraction is the Magic Arrow ability and viper arrows, but it'd be silly to claim that's the only reason.Enchanting arrow, its like power attack with stun on crit, but level 8 and useless against mindless creatures. Its not bad, but it doesn't seem worth taking an entire dedication for.I agree that preventing caster classes from becoming Eldritch Archers early is... questionable, but it does seem in line with the whole edition as being martial oriented and simply ignoring casters.
However, if you look to it from a martial perspective, I consider Enchanting Arrow to be the thing. You're not casting a specific spell to imbue the arrow, but instead you are firing a magic imbued arrow. To me, that is the core Feat of the class.
[Given some other stuff I've seen for casters, I would honestly not be surprised that whoever was writing the class didn't realise caster classes literally cannot take it earlier]
I actually rather like a number of the feats, which is why I am here expressing my frustration. If I didn't like the archetype (and expected future archetypes that will use it as a benchmark), I wouldn't be annoyed that it is difficult to enter. There are plenty of dedications that aren't worth typing up a complaint over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, I always preferred the idea of playing an eldritch knight over a magus. I actually found the magus to be kind of complicated, with its pools of points and everything.
I actually rather like a number of the feats, which is why I am here expressing my frustration. If I didn't like the archetype (and expected future archetypes that will use it as a benchmark), I wouldn't be annoyed that it is difficult to enter. There are plenty of dedications that aren't worth typing up a complaint over.Seems like really odd cherry picking right here. If I take the class, I might of course enjoy one feat over another, but generally people take a dedication because of a mix of powers and aesthetics. For me, the main attraction is the Magic Arrow ability and viper arrows, but it'd be silly to claim that's the only reason.Enchanting arrow, its like power attack with stun on crit, but level 8 and useless against mindless creatures. Its not bad, but it doesn't seem worth taking an entire dedication for.I agree that preventing caster classes from becoming Eldritch Archers early is... questionable, but it does seem in line with the whole edition as being martial oriented and simply ignoring casters.
However, if you look to it from a martial perspective, I consider Enchanting Arrow to be the thing. You're not casting a specific spell to imbue the arrow, but instead you are firing a magic imbued arrow. To me, that is the core Feat of the class.
[Given some other stuff I've seen for casters, I would honestly not be surprised that whoever was writing the class didn't realise caster classes literally cannot take it earlier]
Not sure why other archetypes would use this as such, there's other archetypes in the same vein, some even before APG like the golem one. Not every class can meet the earliest possible proficiency for all archetypes, I don't think that's intended or good design either. Some classes have different options and access points and it adds variety to things I believe.
Sounds like rather than eldritch, your concern might be with prestige type archetypes, such as shadowdancer. Even hellknight is minimum level six and even requires another dedication before picking it up. There's actually a myriad of 6+ only archetypes even before Eldritch Archer came out. On the upside, eldritch archer does something great for non-casters. It actually gives them access to class features without having to multiclass like before, that alone is an amazing change and a great precedent.
@manbearscientist
Dang nice explanation, you covered it so much better than me.
Side note, do you think it might a viable/interesting tactic to pick up spellstoring ammunition with the Magic Arrow ability and shoot arrows that can use spells that don't use spell attack rolls (ie can't be cast with Eldritch Shot?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said - I'm quite glad that higher level archetypes still exist, and I would be disappointed if everything were available at level 2.
I don't disagree. Higher level archetypes are important and good design space.
But magical archer isn't just a prestige idea, imo. It's sort of a character defining concept. Not being able to explore that design space at all until level 6 or level 12 feels unfortunate to me.
As I said - I'm quite glad that higher level archetypes still exist, and I would be disappointed if everything were available at level 2.I don't disagree. Higher level archetypes are important and good design space.
But magical archer isn't just a prestige idea, imo. It's sort of a character defining concept. Not being able to explore that design space at all until level 6 or level 12 feels unfortunate to me.
That's not entirely true though. Any fighter could for example grab Wizard at 2nd and 4th and use spellstoring arrows and magic arrows like vine arrows. Or as manbearscientist mentioned, cast a cantrip then follow up with a Strike.
Heck, a lot of humans and elves can do that with just ancestry feats at level 1. You're still a magical archer even if you don't use Eldritch Shot.
|
|
As I said - I'm quite glad that higher level archetypes still exist, and I would be disappointed if everything were available at level 2.I don't disagree. Higher level archetypes are important and good design space.
But magical archer isn't just a prestige idea, imo. It's sort of a character defining concept. Not being able to explore that design space at all until level 6 or level 12 feels unfortunate to me.
That's not entirely true though. Any fighter could for example grab Wizard at 2nd and 4th and use spellstoring arrows and magic arrows like vine arrows. Or as manbearscientist mentioned, cast a cantrip then follow up with a Strike.
Heck, a lot of humans and elves can do that with just ancestry feats at level 1. You're still a magical archer even if you don't use Eldritch Shot.
Magic arrows cost money. The fact that you can cast a cantrip and shoot a bow anyway is a part of the argument for letting you do them together before level 6.
Magic arrows cost money. The fact that you can cast a cantrip and shoot a bow anyway is a part of the argument for letting you do them together before level 6.
As I said - I'm quite glad that higher level archetypes still exist, and I would be disappointed if everything were available at level 2.I don't disagree. Higher level archetypes are important and good design space.
But magical archer isn't just a prestige idea, imo. It's sort of a character defining concept. Not being able to explore that design space at all until level 6 or level 12 feels unfortunate to me.
That's not entirely true though. Any fighter could for example grab Wizard at 2nd and 4th and use spellstoring arrows and magic arrows like vine arrows. Or as manbearscientist mentioned, cast a cantrip then follow up with a Strike.
Heck, a lot of humans and elves can do that with just ancestry feats at level 1. You're still a magical archer even if you don't use Eldritch Shot.
So does alchemical items, but one class and it's MC give them for free. There's an archetype for that too. Even an archetype that gives talismans for free. The option is there, the eldritch archer improves on it the same way an alchemist or talismanarchetype does. It doesn't make it unfair that other classes who dabble in craft and alchemical crafting have to pay or pick an archetype to be better at it?
The 6+ classes tend to improve on something, if you can do it just as well at level two or without the archetype, it loses impact a lot of the time. And you're still a magic archer without eldritch archer's eldritch shot. Just like you can be a slave saving revolutionary before grabbing Bellflower before level six. Bellflower archetype doesn't make it somehow impossible to be a slave saver before 6, he's just better at it.
Also note that the cantrip + strike will fall behind since the martial won't have spell attack as proficient as his bow attack. Eldritch archer offers them a way to bypass the casting proficiency lag, while a caster who comes in later has an insanely bigger spell repetoir. There's ups and downs to all combinations and again, what you're complaining about eldritch archer has been happening since before APG.
Magic arrows cost money. The fact that you can cast a cantrip and shoot a bow anyway is a part of the argument for letting you do them together before level 6.
As I said - I'm quite glad that higher level archetypes still exist, and I would be disappointed if everything were available at level 2.I don't disagree. Higher level archetypes are important and good design space.
But magical archer isn't just a prestige idea, imo. It's sort of a character defining concept. Not being able to explore that design space at all until level 6 or level 12 feels unfortunate to me.
That's not entirely true though. Any fighter could for example grab Wizard at 2nd and 4th and use spellstoring arrows and magic arrows like vine arrows. Or as manbearscientist mentioned, cast a cantrip then follow up with a Strike.
Heck, a lot of humans and elves can do that with just ancestry feats at level 1. You're still a magical archer even if you don't use Eldritch Shot.
Yeah, but a fighter doesn't get to cast and hit with that cantrip on his best proficiency - with all the extra crits that entails - on top of his deadly weapon attack if they shoot and cast separately.
There are very good reasons for gating this at 6th, and making sure the related casting options are limited at that point.
The biggest problem for this archetype is that Wizard who used to love this archetype for delivering AoE were kicked out to the curve.
Not only is that ability gone. The minimum level to enter it went from level 8 with a bit of dipping, to at least level 12.
The fact the archetype doesnt even require the ability to cast spells makes it clear casters are no longer the intended users.
All AA required in 1st Edition was merely level 1 arcane spells, let's not go too far overboard into this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like mostly people are unhappy that Eldritch Archer is an updated version of Arcane Archer, instead of being something different entirely.
Of course, if it had been something different entirely, we would be hearing from people (me among them) complaining that it isn't faithful to Arcane Archer...
I think the big difference might be because of the way "BAB" works now. Before a wizard would end up gaining full BAB and casting-1 from the prestige and that's why it felt viable probably. I don't think it can be replicated exactly in the new system which uses proficiency. It still seems like both cases are meant to augment a martial archer and the aoe flinging wizards were a happy accident.
On upside, this has some really sweet improvements and sets a nice precedent in that it allows all schools of casting, works with innate spells that can be gained in a few different ways, and doesn't force multiclassing before being able to enter it for either class.
It still feels likeboth martial and casters can benefit in their own way though, a caster who enters at higher level has a much broader spell selection, while a martial supplements hs strikes with magic and utility. Though again, because of the new system, a caster is often better off using his Spell Attack rolls, it's not like before where they had to be amazing acrobats to hit with a ray spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like mostly people are unhappy that Eldritch Archer is an updated version of Arcane Archer, instead of being something different entirely.
Of course, if it had been something different entirely, we would be hearing from people (me among them) complaining that it isn't faithful to Arcane Archer...
Eldritch Archer used to be an Archetype of Magus.
They took the spellstrike ability from the Archetype and all but the Imbue Arrow of the Prestige class.
Then they made the archetype extremely difficult for Casters to get it in a timely manner.
Judging by the description and abilities of this archetype, there's no way you can say with a straight face that it is intended to be related to the Magus archetype. The name was changed from Arcane Archer to Eldritch Archer because it's no longer strictly arcane.
Eldritch Shot is much more closely a version of Imbue Arrow - an ability that is otherwise missing from the archetype - rather than a stab at Spellstrike.
And again - unless you were multiclassing in 1e, Arcane Archer was actually harder for wizards to get into, being unavailable until level 13 instead of level 12.
The biggest problem for this archetype is that Wizard who used to love this archetype for delivering AoE were kicked out to the curve.
RIP wizard's ability to use AOEs on enemies, I guess.
Feels like they're two sides of the same coin. A martial EA will have good Archery and struggle to hit with spells alone due to way Spell Attack works. A caster will have the reverse issue. Before, due to aoe spells working, it was probably better, especially since the math was also different and there were ways to cheese some pretty high attack numbers if you knew what you were doing. And it helped that your ranged attack was the same for both spells and bows, which just isn't the case anymore. For better or worse.
I don't think per se it's a /bad/ thing that this is an archetype oriented towards martials more than caster who want to pick up. The same way Magic Warrior or Halcyon Speaker is easier for casters and requires multiclassing or higher level for certain classes like monk/ranger.
Feels like they're two sides of the same coin. A martial EA will have good Archery and struggle to hit with spells alone due to way Spell Attack works. A caster will have the reverse issue. Before, due to aoe spells working, it was probably better, especially since the math was also different and there were ways to cheese some pretty high attack numbers if you knew what you were doing. And it helped that your ranged attack was the same for both spells and bows, which just isn't the case anymore. For better or worse.
I don't think per se it's a /bad/ thing that this is an archetype oriented towards martials more than caster who want to pick up. The same way Magic Warrior or Halcyon Speaker is easier for casters and requires multiclassing or higher level for certain classes like monk/ranger.
Halcyon Speaker is based on Maangabyan Arcanist. That was a spellcasting prestige class requiring 3rd level arcane spells, lots of skills, and a spell feat.
Magic Warrior was a Magus Archetype that gave bonus to remain anonymous, a weak transformation, and ability to cast 7 druid spells.
****************
Its too bad thats the case because it used to be a Gish Prestige Class.
This is martial dedication similar in line to halycon speaker being more for casters.
That's nice, though I don't think the topic was about how well they converted things based on PF1, but the accessability of this archetype or others like this. It seems to boil down to "Some 6+ archetypes are easier for some classes than others." and this falls into martial. Speaker falls into caster. Magic warrior is some martials who get their own Focus, and all casters, so kinda between?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's nice, though I don't think the topic was about how well they converted things based on PF1, but the accessability of this archetype or others like this. It seems to boil down to "Some 6+ archetypes are easier for some classes than others." and this falls into martial. Speaker falls into caster. Magic warrior is some martials who get their own Focus, and all casters, so kinda between?I am speaking from what were this archetypes made for originally and roughly where were they gained.
Magic Warrior is fine because its a 2nd level archetype so its close enough to when Magus would start getting abilities.
Halcyon Speaker is fine because it was a very spell focus Prestige Class with a lot of lore connections.
Eldritch/Arcane Archer is not that fine because its honestly harder for spellcasters to gain access when it used to be relatively okay. Just 1 level later than most martials. Even Magus had to wait till 9th level to gain access to Arcane Archer.
Arrowsong Minstrel Bard and Child of Acavna were the only 2 classes to get access at level 7. A 4th level caster Fighter and a 6th level caster Bard.
Basing on whether an archetype is "fine" based on entry level of PF1 is beyond the scope of the thread for me, so I'm gonna duck out. That's not really interesting comparison anymore imho.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just base thoughts. Level 6 isn't high level. Level 10 is mid level and 2e easily carries itself to 20.
I use free archetype variant rules and just hold off on taking any until level 6. Made multiple martial Eldritch archers (my favorite is investigator).
At no point have I felt the need to gain spell slots outside of maybe a fighter base.
Between Eldritch shot and the numerous types of arrows I feel yes stand alone without spell slots and if your theme is Eldritch Archer with little need for spell utility than you are just bogging yourself down looking for said spell slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Corvo thats just my point of arguement. The thread is about precedent in general.
But then it's not accurate either because there are archetypes which are open for some at 6 at no cost, and later for others, or that demand a cost like multiclassing before Eldritch Archer ever came out.
EA sets no specific requirment precedent because it came after other restricting archetypes. This is no different than a martial without focus trying to become a magic warrior or a lizardman trying to become a dragon disciple. They both can do it, albeit not as easy as say a caster or a kobold/sorcerer.