| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Arcanist are better at using Metamagic."
All casters should be good at metamagic, and arguably Wizards and Sorcerers should tie for first place.
"They are better at counterspelling."
They shouldn't be. This should honestly be a Wizard's bread and butter.
"They are better at redirecting magic and siphoning it."
This could be a good area to explore for an Arcanist class.
"They are able to create, control, and cancel Primal events."
Not sure what you mean by this, but that sounds like any Primal caster.
"They have are able to tap into the Outer Planes."
This should be in the wheelhouse of clerics, witches, wizards, sorcerers, and future occult casters.
"They are better Spell Specialists."
They shouldn't be. This is a Wizard thing.
"They are better Transmutters."
They shouldn't be. This is a wizard thing.
"They are capable of becoming healers even while using Arcane Spells."
This should be a major Witch thing.
I definitely can see them as a class in terms of being a spontaneous arcane caster who brokered/stole/acquired magic through some means.
The key is making each of those respective acquisitions matter in terms of the integration of the class itself.
Spontaneous arcane caster isn’t necessarily a niche, but there’s cool concepts that can certainly be derived there.
I mentioned it in another thread but I definitely see tattoo magic, bloodcasting (like physically using blood, not sorcerer thing), glyph casting, word casting, or even spell thievery potentially fitting in this mold.
But you have to be careful to not just make a Wizard 2.0, and that’s where it gets tricky. Specialization probably should be a Wizard only thing, so arcanists being a smattering of acquired powers might be their thing.
Not going to like, an idea might be they can grab things that belong to other classes or they come with a grandfathered in MCD of another caster but purely to acquire their feats (no casting benefit).
Just spitballing.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Arcanist are better at using Metamagic."
All casters should be good at metamagic, and arguably Wizards and Sorcerers should tie for first place."They are better at counterspelling."
They shouldn't be. This should honestly be a Wizard's bread and butter."They are better at redirecting magic and siphoning it."
This could be a good area to explore for an Arcanist class."They are able to create, control, and cancel Primal events."
Not sure what you mean by this, but that sounds like any Primal caster."They have are able to tap into the Outer Planes."
This should be in the wheelhouse of clerics, witches, wizards, sorcerers, and future occult casters."They are better Spell Specialists."
They shouldn't be. This is a Wizard thing."They are better Transmutters."
They shouldn't be. This is a wizard thing."They are capable of becoming healers even while using Arcane Spells."
This should be a major Witch thing.
Pretty much all of this. If the Arcanist had an identity (it didn't, it existed to be a full arcane caster for people who don't like the traditional Vancian system) it's been cannibalized by the wizard. All of this Arcanist class identity stuff already exists in PF2 as wizard class features and feats.
So Arcanist might be:
A class that has class features to enable a new type of spell casting that is a cross between spontaneous and prepared casting.
Or it could be a class archetype: which changes an existing spontaneous or prepared spell-casting set of rules to instead function with a new set of rules.
Instead of just having Prepared casters having spell known, and spells prepared, you could have spells known, and have to pick out spells from your spells known, for your Daily-Repertoire. So unlike the Spontaneous the repertoire isn't static, must be studied each morning similar to Vancian wizards. But the spells don't get consumed, only the slots.
Archetype option might be good in that it might open up functionality that could be applied to multiple classes, with a single set of rules. i.e. this is how you change prepared casting to pseudo-spontaneous casting. Number of slots stays the same. Number of spells that can be selected for your daily-repertoire is determined by such-n-such formula. Feats adding generalized slots, do the following. Things that add a restricted slot (such as slot only for a certain school) are handled such-n-such. etc.
So there are advantages to it being done as a class archetype, or a different class. Just different advantages one way or the other. I really only associated Arcanist with being a cross between prepared and spontaneous spellcasting, so I'm not familiar with what other things people would consider a necessary part of what an Arcanist would be. It is good to see a list, but I have to admit that I probably agree mostly with WatersLethe's opinions on most of them.
I hate to rob people who see Arcanist as meriting a whole class to itself, but I also sort of think that the idea of a bridge/cross between classic Vancian and Spontaneous spellcasting is something that many spellcasting classes could use, so I sort of hope to see something in the new magic book that might give that as an option for multiple classes. Even if that might make people start feeling like they could get the key parts of being an Arcanist by using an already existing class. But yes, I acknowledge that might lower the need for the separate class, which might disappoint those.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see arcanist as a class archetype for wizard and call it a day. That or an arcane school, but I think class archetype suits it better.
Arcanist Exploits were honestly pretty game changing abilities.
Like honestly, if they were to do an Arcanist it would probably have an innate power that totally exemplifies the type of magic that they were "infused" with.
If some of those exploits became focal points, it could be the Swashbuckler/Fighter equivalent of the Wizard.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like Arcanist would make a compelling mythic-like super-class that Sorcerers and Wizards could go into, since it sounds like their class fantasy is being a wizard+ or sorcerer+
It sounds like Arcanist would make a compelling mythic-like super-class that Sorcerers and Wizards could go into, since it sounds like their class fantasy is being a wizard+ or sorcerer+
Haha I suppose.
But I’ll look for any reason to shoehorn the binary system into a class. Swashbuckler is super cool and distinct from the Fighter and I wouldn’t call it “Fighter+” or “Rogue+” necessarily. The Drifter is a cool place to do that too, but what about a full caster?
Arcanist could be that and the spontaneous arcane maybe. That’s kinda something. Maybe an exploit is only something you can do while you have “Overcharge” or something, which expends your “Overcharge” until you gain it back (perhaps by casting a certain type of spell successfully or for a certain damage type).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, Arcanist was the casting class that could swap out any prepared spontaneous spell in a single turn, many times per day, and could trade half its class features for all of Sorcerer's class features. It was Archmage Lite. It was also on the GM's perma-ban list, along with the aptly named Exploiter Wizard.
To me, it had a cobbled-together feel. There wasn't enough distinct flavor, so it just ended up with things… because. What do "transmutation specialist", "arcane healing", and "counterspelling" have to do with one another?
I'd be happy to see Arcanist-style casting show up as one of the variant casting rules in Secrets of Magic so that games which want it can easily use it without requiring any feats or archetypes.
I'm definitely biased, though.
To me, the Arcanist was the Wizard class for players who didn't want to have to plan out exactly how many castings of whichever spells they thought they'd need. Yes, it had its own name and some background lore posted in front, but it was really just the Wizard 2.0.
So the P2E Arcanist, if it existed, would need to do the same thing (prep a spell list then spontaneously cast off that list) before anything else. But given how spontaneous casting has taken a step backwards in this edition*, frankly, I'd rather the arcanist not see the light of day here. Or at least, not until a friendlier casting variant got published (which may well be something in Secrets of Magic).
*
I'm a P1E Sorcerer. I know Feather Fall. I am completely out of 1st-level spell slots (never mind why), though I still have all my higher level slots. I'm falling to my doom. What do I do? I accept the slight inefficiency of using a 2nd-level slot to cast a 1st-level spell, avoid dying, and go about my day.
I'm a P2E Sorcerer. I know Feather Fall as a 1st-level spell and not as a signature spell. I'm completely out of 1st-level spell slots (never mind why here as well) and also have plenty of higher level slots. I'm falling to my doom, too. What do I do (bearing in mind that, to my knowledge, the vagaries of the phrasing for casting spells might-maybe-possibly-ifyousquint allow for using higher level slots for lower level (and non-heightened) spells, rather than being definitively spelled out one way or the other despite numerous and old requests for exactly that clarification)?
The step backwards is that it used to be "know the spell, have a spell slot of at least its level, cast, profit", whereas now it's more "a shortlist of spells collectively known/prepared for each level of spell slot, with only signature spells being able to break out of their molds". Closer to prep casting and further from the freedom of P1E spontaneous casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda dig the idea mentioned earlier of a class designed to cater towards "runecaster" types - perhaps the way that'd be framed mechanically is a class that lacks vancian spell prep and just gets very strong, bread-and-butter innate spells. It'd play like a spellcaster that only gets cantrips I think, though they'd be unusually strong cantrips. I don't think I'd describe this as the Arcanist, at least in the PF1 sense.
As a brief note, I would like to say that I don't believe I once suggested the Arcanist not be included in 2e. On the contrary, I wholly expect and desire it to introduced. The question therein is how that will happen? As it stands, the Arcanist in it's current incarnation is quite possibly going to be an Archetype or Subclass. We know this is a serious discussion that the devs are considering and that it is very possible some classes won't see a return as Full Classes
Also, I was speaking primarily from a larelgy narrative standpoint rather than a strictly mechanical one. Regardless, the question remains not the why should the class be included, but rather how can the class evolve? It isn't likely to transition to 2e as it is presented in 1e. So, it needs to perhaps be re-examined and re-designed in a way to keep it fresh and relevant when compared to the other classes, which have seen quite a bit of change.
Still, I think the best and most interesting means of doing this is a duel tradition caster. That is just my opinion. Again, I very much so wish to see it return in some way. A Full Class is always preferable for me than anything else. Trust. If it was up to me, I'd make all the classes full classes. Was hoping that the non-mounted portions of the Cavailer would be expanded on and served up as a Full Class. Instead, got the Duelist, which seems to take the Cavaliers Challenge feature.
Also. I feel like this response seems kind of defensive or standoffish. Not at all my intentions. So I hope you take no offense.
I kinda dig the idea mentioned earlier of a class designed to cater towards "runecaster" types - perhaps the way that'd be framed mechanically is a class that lacks vancian spell prep and just gets very strong, bread-and-butter innate spells. It'd play like a spellcaster that only gets cantrips I think, though they'd be unusually strong cantrips. I don't think I'd describe this as the Arcanist, at least in the PF1 sense.
I wouldn’t describe it as a PF1 Arcanist either but then the swashbuckler is pretty different from PF1 too.
I think the spirit can be there, an Arcanist was supposed to be this “I am ingrained with magic but I learned how to ingrain it”.
Non vancian casting shouldn’t be shoved into a single class IMO, but then, that’s sort of what it was in PF1 right? So it being the class that alters the traditional workings of vancian casting with some kind of new system would be the way to set them apart I think.
Non traditional Spellbooks could also work really well for a class like that. I still like the idea of incorporating that concept could stem from the binary system and exploits too.
As for the matter of mechanics. The basis of all classes are its mechanics. While the lore rounds out the class and grounds it.
This is blatantly untrue. If this were the case then there would be as many classes as there were ideas for cool mechanics, and the number of classes in ODnD would be much greater than the current number, since the idea of balance is something that developed more recently. Gygax would simply have thrown in anything he thought cool, whereas modern designers would have thrown out those concepts that couldn't be made to be balanced. There were not because a classes mechanical identity must develop to at least to some extent from its lore, rather than the lore being a layer on top. Lore defines the lines within which class abilities can operate, and without it there is no reason not to have a Gurps style grab bag of cool things, without the long term progression that a class system provides.
For example, without the lore of having a patron, a witch would simply be a set of wizard class feats giving you a better familiar. Instead it has some cool and flavourful feats defined by it's being a witch with a patron, and only there because of that. Without lore as a guiding principle of design there would be no pure tradition casters, and there would be no traditions because casters would just choose the spells they liked. The system on having class relies on the idea of strong lore that a player commits to to some extent, that then guides their long term progression.
Class feat pools exist because within lore there is some flexibility. A highly trained warrior may want to charge into battle quickly and strike their foe, but they may also want to learn about their foe the better to take them down. However, the reason that these feats are able to progress as they gain levels is because the designers can be sure that by the time that they reach 14th level they are still a highly trained warrior, and have thus been able to develop their skills in the same direction.
Additionally, whether or not character precedes class for you, for at least some portion of the playerbase a great advantage of the current system is that any character that one wishes to play will be supported. Classes without narrative justification serve only to confuse and bloat the choices they have to make. Such options require a top down underderstanding of what makes them tick, and decrease a players freedom to develop who their character is by being forced to pigeonhole their character, rather than picking a broad archetype, because the subtle differences mean that classes jostle for their attention.
This is why, instead of having separate classes for mystic hunter, trapper and warrior with animal companion, we have a single class: ranger. There could be separate mechanical support for each, but instead a player is able to choose to play a survivalist tracker type, and elaborate from there.
In short: the reason that pathfinder and othe class based games are able to be what they are(and not give way to truly nightmarish feat trees) is because that class design is guided by lore, and not the other way around, and asserting otherwise will lead to a bloated mess of a game.
I'm sorry to all the people who read this essay and think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but it's my molehill and I'm willing metaphorically to die here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of arcanist as the "magical hacker" so to speak - the kind of person who a wizard or sorcerer would look like and say, "Hey! That's not how that works!" Lean in to the exploits as doing things that aren't normal for magic. Lean in to the non-traditional spellbooks. The runecaster who carved Thassilonian magic in to her skin has a different narrative and feel from the wizard or the witch or the sorcerer.
Like.... you attained some great insight in to magic, almost like an arcane oracle (but not really), and you understand things. Maybe you get an extra slot for the tradition of your choice in addition to your arcane spells. Maybe maybe maybe. I think that either way, Secrets of Magic will have a lot of material to riff off for any hypothetical arcanist design. Oh, maybe they could use those alternate lists they're going to bring in....
I kinda dig the idea mentioned earlier of a class designed to cater towards "runecaster" types - perhaps the way that'd be framed mechanically is a class that lacks vancian spell prep and just gets very strong, bread-and-butter innate spells. It'd play like a spellcaster that only gets cantrips I think, though they'd be unusually strong cantrips. I don't think I'd describe this as the Arcanist, at least in the PF1 sense.I wouldn’t describe it as a PF1 Arcanist either but then the swashbuckler is pretty different from PF1 too.
I think the spirit can be there, an Arcanist was supposed to be this “I am ingrained with magic but I learned how to ingrain it”.
Non vancian casting shouldn’t be shoved into a single class IMO, but then, that’s sort of what it was in PF1 right? So it being the class that alters the traditional workings of vancian casting with some kind of new system would be the way to set them apart I think.
Non traditional Spellbooks could also work really well for a class like that. I still like the idea of incorporating that concept could stem from the binary system and exploits too.
I agree that one thing that makes me shy away from Arcanist as a class is that I agree that the option to swap Vancian for something a bit more spontaneous (not not completely spontaneous) shouldn't be relegated to an individual class. So a list of Class Archetypes that define changes to prepared magic processes for affected classes (similar to multi-class spell-casting rules) has a lot of appeal to me.
As to talking about not being able to make a class out of it, I wouldn't go so far. I think the Swashbuckler is an excellent example of a class that many said 'could' be filled fine by a fighter focusing on finesse weapons, or a rogue focusing on combat. However, Paizo came up with a really flavorful, distinct option. It doesn't invalidate, either the Fighter, or Rogue options, but adds a new highly mobile, flashy combatant option into the mix.
Certainly, if they can find an equally viable option for the Arcanist that enables some of the things that were their niche and people associated them, that has unique game mechanics, and adds options, great. However, I'm hoping that its primary new mechanic isn't the non-vancian preparation. Because I am hoping that an option will exist that can be applied generally to most if not all prepared casting classes. This keep people from having to wait for each prepared casting class from having to be revisited for a new class.
But I don't hate Vancian, I've been around long enough, it makes sense from a mini-reality sense, so I don't want this new method to invalidate Vancian caster/classes. I want both options to exist in Golarion.
Would it be that bad to imagine Arcanist being a Class archetype for Wizard which makes them Pseudo-Spontaneous casters, and opens up a line of Archetype feats with Exploit in their name? Giving them access to some items that are thematic to the Arcane Spell-tinkers?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why, instead of having separate classes for mystic hunter, trapper and warrior with animal companion, we have a single class: ranger. There could be separate mechanical support for each, but instead a player is able to choose to play a survivalist tracker type, and elaborate from there.
We do though. They're just archetypes instead of full classes, as each of those separately can be covered (at the moment) by a handful of feats, where altogether they require more.
I've described the Ranger before as less of a distinct class on its own and more 3-5 archetypes huddled together with Hunt Prey to bind them, and I stand by that. I feel it IS enough to base a class around 3-5 small ideas instead of 1 big one, if you can figure out a through line to bundle them together and those ideas aren't already attached to another class (attached to 3-5 different classes, cool, but not all the same class).
And that's where the Arcanist falls flat. Casting method aside, the rest of its mechanical niches are mostly covered by the Wizard. Which suggests that a class archetype that changes out how a Wizard casts their spells might cover the concept, as long as the Wizard ALSO gets class feats that mimic or translate forward the Arcanist exploits.
Actually, class archetypes that do the same for all spell casting classes would be helpful. They did mention that they were planning to introduce rules for people that don't like Vancian magic (I forget the exact phrasing there), so perhaps something along those lines is coming.
I like the idea of arcanist as the "magical hacker" so to speak - the kind of person who a wizard or sorcerer would look like and say, "Hey! That's not how that works!" Lean in to the exploits as doing things that aren't normal for magic. Lean in to the non-traditional spellbooks. The runecaster who carved Thassilonian magic in to her skin has a different narrative and feel from the wizard or the witch or the sorcerer.
My preferred mechanical hook would revolve around messing with spell traits as you prepare or cast spells. But I could also see that being a Thesis, so...yeah.
* P.S. Arcanist are a prepared caster with a spellbook. They did not have spells known.
They were not spontaneous casters.
They were simply and literally a prepared caster who could caster their spell spontaneously. The PF2 Polymath Bard and Arcane Sorcerer are nothing but weak copies of Arcanist spellcasting.
Given the thematic description of the Arcane tradition, which I actually strongly dislike but it is there, the Arcanist method of setting up their spells for the day and then casting spontaneously from it is "spontaneous" enough for me to fill in as the Spontaneous Arcane caster, with the added virtue of being mechanically distinct from an Arcane sorcerer.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would we want a new class that is an "intelligence based arcane caster who expresses a mastery over magic" when there is currently a large number of players who feel like Wizard is lacking precisely because it lacks that flavor?
I'd much prefer using some of the more loved Arcanist features to make Wizards more interesting (if not more powerful) to address those concerns.
Imagine a alternate Wizard setup where your school and arcane bond were replaced by arcanist style casting, resulting in significantly fewer slots per day by base (this would make then a 2-3 slot caster) but with the flexibility of prepared-spontaneous casting and the arcane thesis on top of that.
I dont think that warrants a whole class, but at that point you're really only a feat chain or two from having a 2E arcanist for all practical purposes...
Wouldn't that just exacerbate the problem? I've seen many object that the wizard school does little that is interesting, making all wizards feel the same, so just swapping out that feature entirely for a new, single option, isn't really going to fix that.
Whatever happens to the Arcanist, fixing wizard schools and thesis by making the choice interesting is still a thing that needs to happen.
Wouldn't that just exacerbate the problem? I've seen many object that the wizard school does little that is interesting, making all wizards feel the same, so just swapping out that feature entirely for a new, single option, isn't really going to fix that.
Whatever happens to the Arcanist, fixing wizard schools and thesis by making the choice interesting is still a thing that needs to happen.
We can absolutely debate this particular point - I dont support the idea that an extra slot of your favorite school is weak and uninteresting or that there aren't at least three extremely strong and interesting thesis choices (as of the APG, familiars join substation and blending) - but there are plenty of threads for that.
I just think that the option to replace those with something players find more interesting is a better option than making "Wizard 2.0, its exactly like Wizard and shares 80% of class feats (because it would) except that its not Wizard in name".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I take issue with the whole idea of painting wizards as some kind of stodgy, traditionalist, conventional class.
They're supposed to be the class that invents new magic. Wizard schools are half the time depicted as cut-throat, no-holds-barred magical brawls for power and knowledge. One out of every three wizards in media thinks rules are there to slow down their competition.
A class full of people with literally the highest intelligence scores on the planet, all of which are consumed by the need to expand their knowledge, would find loopholes, tricks, and shortcuts to power.
Arcanists need to be something other than the Wizard who slicks back their hair and doesn't play by the rules.
I dont support the idea that an extra slot of your favorite school is weak and uninteresting or that there aren't at least three extremely strong and interesting thesis choices (as of the APG, familiars join substation and blending) - but there are plenty of threads for that.
You dragged it into this one.
I am aware of your opinion. I'm talking about other people, and they would not be addressed by eliminating schools entirely. If they do find a way to shoehorn Arcanists into the Wizard class, and I think Paizo can do exactly that, then I hope it happens in a way that retains schools and thesis.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR: What if Arcanists actually worked towards Unified Theory? What if the established lore meant something? What if I stopped editing this sleep-deprived mess of an idea and actually posted it?
---
---
"A combination of rage and sadness overwhelmed her as she realized that her own rejection of Nethys and other gods of magic had been holding her back from attaining the knowledge she’d always yearned for. How could she return to Manaket and her governmental position knowing that so much more information remained beyond her grasp, simply because it was held in libraries dedicated to deities her nation had shunned?"
Honestly... A lot of the things mentioned, from manipulating wild magic to warping other casters' spells to twisting natural energies to having strange semi-divine dealings with the outer planes... That suggests a very specific class to me, and it's not an "Arcanist" as in "Arcane Caster".
No, what strikes me is the idea of an "Arcanist" exemplifying the ideas that lead to the Legendary Arcane Feat: "Unified Theory". If you study magic hard enough in an intellectual, scientific, Arcane manner, it turns out that there are some base principles to work from in order to understand All Magic; more paths may be possible, but that's just IN the lore now. Of course, I certainly would not be trying to trivialise that high-level feat, but that's clearly not what the Wizard's for; the feat's a useful counterspell/identification aid, but they don't actively play with the concept. However, Arcanists were always the mad scientists of the spellcasters so, now that Traditions are significantly cooler than the divine/arcane split, why not have them flex their way into that role of science-mage and mess around with the very building blocks of magic that the feat implies? That is to say, not this clunky archaic method of "apply x metamagic to z spell" with some list-access as a treat, but messing around with the essences themselves!
It's probably not infeasible to build a full-caster that's truly flexible with their tradition, if we're careful. The Magaambyan subclasses give us an idea of how it could be done, but it'd obviously need to be way more developed. The core idea of different traditions giving different minor bonuses is cool, but this class should go the long way around to get there. The mastery-of-all could definitely originate from an Arcane way of looking at magic based on the premise. Therefore, rather than an Esoteric Bard picking up long-lost tricks as they go, or a Magaambyan Cascade-Bearer weaving their intuitive philosophies of magic through many established traditions, it'd have a significantly analytical, forward-looking, experimental bent, totally beyond anything a responsible academic like a Wizard would risk; even their "experimental" casters just slot together the old standbys, and the explodiest Evoker still knows exactly where to stand not to get burned.
Now, this theoretical Arcanist would obviously have to have limits to their access to those lists; simply selecting from all four would neither be feasible nor particularly forward-thinking. I'd suggest that they start off with some super limited collection of spells on their list, predominantly Arcane with some Occult and/or Primal, and no Divine just yet. They're focusing on practical Mind and Matter at the moment, only tentatively reaching into Life and Spirit*. As they level up, they could gain feats and abilities thematically centred around the experiences they've had with magic in the campaign; obviously given stuff like PFS this wouldn't necessarily be hard-and-fast mechanic, but it's at least a fun idea to put in the flavour-text. In any case, it wouldn't be a case of copying down scrolls or simply leveling-up to add spells; they'd always be building upon and editing something smaller, and yes that sounds complicated but frankly I don't think that any of this would appeal to people who don't want a bit of complication. That doesn't have to be a weakness; it's the same way that the Investigator presumably doesn't appeal to folks who don't like re-contextualising combat as a self-reflective murder mystery complete with story arc, slinky femme fatale and third-act twist revelation. The twist being of a dagger, of course, and the revelation being the femme fata-otyugh's innards... The theme is loss-of-self, y'know?
Sorry, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah, Arcanists.
Essentially, these level-about choose-an-ability things would be centred around some insight they gain into a specific field of their choice, an insight they then leverage so as to twist elsewise magics into new forms. An Arcane Exploit, if you will. Perhaps, each would have some specific magic-exploiting benefit, as well as adding x number of spells with y trait to the list, or gaining some sort of metamagic-y focus spell that completely changes the game-feel of a spell, rather than just adding a rider or increasing the range. I guess I'm meaning something between a Lesson and a Thesis, but as a built-in advancement-choice more aided by feats than reliant on them**. These Exploits could, potentially, do anything from spell-redirection to spellwarp hackery, like using (something akin to) Current Spell not when you cast a water/air spell, but when you're hit by one. Devouring magic items is definitely on the table here too, and yes you would get to laugh at the Wizard with their little woo-I-can-charge-my-staff-slightly-better-now Thesis when you've MASTERED the power to USE the staff's POWER yOuRSELF!! To temporarily add a trick to your five spells or whatever, sure, but like, y'know, it's a work in progress and not everyone has the attention span to pass Spellbook Maintenance so they'd better get off your back before you slap them with their own apprento-hands.
A higher-level one could be nailing other essences' effects onto Heal and Harm quite specifically. We know it can be done from a base-principles standpoint, because it's a basic talent of the Cleric's font to mess around with the inherently malleable energies of those spells, but we have no idea how it could interact with other Traditions and that is exactly what I think could be fun to explore here. I seem to recall a feat to channel elemental energies in PF1, and a bunch of god-specific edits, so there's some precedent, but this obviously wouldn't quite be that. It'd be on a significantly more convenient ability, for starters, and you wouldn't necessarily be crippling your healing to do so.
On that note, I like the idea of having five-to-seven-ish levels of actual tradition access spread out over ten levels of slot progression, having to mix up the spells to get higher. A bit like the Wizard's Dual Spell but, y'know, not a powerful capstone accentuating ten full levels of ouch. Don't get me wrong, you got the slots and you've got the chops, but you just haven't specialised enough to get each tradition's most powerful options. You can still Heighten, and you've got your tricks, and you've got a couple of feats based around fusing spells in interesting ways; it would obviously be a necessity that it be doable without system mastery or a ton of maths. Versatility can provide power, and this would have to provide some real day-to-day versatility; as best I understand, their tenth slot would still absolutely keep them competitive with incapacitate spells, so we have room to play here. Vitally, that cutoff also gives straight-casters the chance to turn around and razz the Arcanist for their so-called genius sputtering out just when the magic gets cosmic, so the Arcanist doesn't get to just dominate the magical narrative compared to the truly incredible feats of their focused peers... but the Arcanist gets the validation from their point of view too; they perform feats with magic that nobody ever thought possible, and their tricks should be just as fun to play with as high-level spells, just potent in a different way. Obviously, at the very end of the day, they still get a super duper capstone feat, and one option for that should be a single 10th-spell, but the others should be just as compelling.
...
HOWEVER, this is getting too long and I haven't slept in aeons; let's wrap this up.
So this isn't an ivory-tower academic finally starting their adventure (they got kicked out of the tower).
Nor is it an old bardic dabbler with some strange ideas (while they do seem to dabble in strangeness)
Nor an all-energies-are-one masked sage (though there's certainly a connection there)
Nor is there reliance on covenant with some outside Patron or Deity (but they're certainly on the market)
Nor even a things-of-the-kings object-caster (as much as relics can be fun to draw on)
This also certainly isn't merely some mage-blooded talent deciding to min-max their mastery. But it is still the Arcanist. I realised about halfway through writing that this is exactly the sort of down-to-earth-yet-head-in-the-clouds Arcano-Occult Experimental Explorer that Enora, the Iconic Arcanist, exemplifies, and we know that she's familiar with old, forbidden magic that we'd now call Occult, and with Divine revelations straight from Nethys himself. This class might indeed have cause to dabble in that Occult, or to deconstruct the obscure Primal philosophies of Jatembe, perhaps even unweaving the delicate planar essences that allow Clerics' belief to manifest as some manner of deific power... Nethys isn't necessarily the easiest to work with, but he seems to be working for Enora! Nice lil progression of her story, wouldn't you say?
"Now, Enora travels the Inner Sea in search of a better understanding of the inner workings of magic and the secrets of lost empires whose magic surpassed that of even the most powerful modern archmages, utilizing whatever resources she can gain access to, be they religious or secular in nature."
---
---
*Think a bit like ATLA if you've seen it; Aang's a prodigy Airbender, so he naturally sucks at Earthbending's philosophy, but Water and Fire aren't too far from his wheelhouse.
**Yes, this is an issue, but do bear in mind that this is where most of the class's spell selection would be coming from, and this in place of the usual subclasses. It's important to ensure that the spell advancement is consistent and controlled because you never know how a future spell combo could blow up. This obviously isn't very robust yet, but I'm just spitballing.
---
---
(Also, yes, Unified Theory would definitely be a bonus feat and, yes, that high-level class feature would be called "First Principles". The reality-warping capstone feats would of course be "Proof by _____", but that's trivial.)
((Also also, genuinely please poke holes in the idea if you read it! Thinking about this stuff is really fun and, while I think my initial idea was cool, and it all derived from that, I'm aware that the idea is currently way too messy. It would need to be incredibly carefully pulled-off to actually function, assuming it ever could.))
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont support the idea that an extra slot of your favorite school is weak and uninteresting or that there aren't at least three extremely strong and interesting thesis choices (as of the APG, familiars join substation and blending) - but there are plenty of threads for that.You dragged it into this one.
I am aware of your opinion. I'm talking about other people, and they would not be addressed by eliminating schools entirely. If they do find a way to shoehorn Arcanists into the Wizard class, and I think Paizo can do exactly that, then I hope it happens in a way that retains schools and thesis.
I think you may have at least partially misunderstood what I was actually suggesting.
I was suggesting having arcanist style spellcasting replacing Arcane School (or at least the extra spell slot aspect of it), as I dont think you can add such a dramatically superior spellcasting style while maintaining a Wizards superior allotment of spells.
And separately adding a couple of lines of feats covering Arcane Exploits and the "magic devouring" core aspects of the Arcanist.
PF2E is modular enough that you can create a setup where players can go as deeply in this direction as they like.
I would not touch Arcane Thesis in this scenario. It works for "Arcanists" as well as it does for core Wizards. Having both Arcanist style casting and Spell Substitution recaptures (thematically, not necessarily power wise) one of the better tricks Arcanists could do with Spell repreparation, for example.
I was suggesting having arcanist style spellcasting replacing Arcane School (or at least the extra spell slot aspect of it), as I dont think you can add such a dramatically superior spellcasting style while maintaining a Wizards superior allotment of spells.
I agree that a wizard class archetype is the best way to reintroduce the arcanist in PF2.
One thought I had was that the Arcanist probably would not have a Signature Spell class feature. A one action focus spell that made one of your prepared spells a signature spell for a minute would be pretty interesting to me and plays into their ability to power up their lower level spells with arcane points.
I am all for the Arcanist as a sort of mad scientist mage, but I can't say that I agree that it should span the different traditions. If nothing else, I don't beleive that study of magic can get you to anything but arcane magic. The arcane spell list is the set of spells that it is possible to reach through study. The Unified theory is such a high level feat because it requires a supernaturally gifted genius to be able to draw real comparisons between the different traditions of magic. Without such legendary insight, magic of different traditions is utterly impenetrable between users.
While it may be possible to study different traditions of magic through their own lenses, to try to make progress in divine casting through the lense of the arcane would be like trying to study art through the lense of physics. It is an error, I feel, to treat the different traditions of magic as simply different flavours, from which one can pick and choose. They are totally different ways of looking at the world, reached in totally different ways.
I don't think that I would accept any arcanist class that wasn't purely arcane.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The boiler plate homebrew scattershot Arcanist attempt with Binary system no one asked for:
Arcanist
Spontaneous Caster (standard prog)
Simple Weapons, Unarmored, 6HP, Will Expert, Fortitude Expert, Reflex Trained
Overcharge Arcanists gain power by extending magic through their bodies via their Magical Discipline. Whenever an enemy critically fails a save against one of your Arcanist spells or you critically succeeded a spell attack roll with your Arcanist spells, you gain Overcharge. If the spell cast would affect multiple targets, the Arcanist must choose one of the targets of the spell for the purposes of triggering Overcharge.
While you have Overcharge, you gain the passive benefits associated with your Magical Discipline and a +1 circumstance bonus to AC. You also gain access to special spells called Exploits, which can only be used while you have Overcharge and cause you to lose your Overcharge.
Arcanist Exploits are special spells that can only be cast while the Arcanist has Overcharge. These exploits are automatically heightened to the highest level spell an Arcanist can cast.
___________________________________
Disciplines
Sanguinist - You wield the properties of blood, which contains innate magical power. Whenever you cast a spell on a target that is bleeding or a spell that has the Death trait and the target fails the save or you succeeded at the spell attack roll, you gain Overcharge. In addition, while you have Overcharge you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to Fortitude saves.
You gain the Arcanist Exploit Exsanguinate.
Elemancer - You derive your magical power from the elements. Whenever you cast a spell with the Fire, Earth, Air, or Water traits and the target fails the save or you succeeded at the spell attack roll, you gain Overcharge. In addition, while you have Overcharge you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to Reflex saves.
You gain the Arcanist Exploit Bend Elements
Tattooist - You wield ancient symbols to propogate your magical powers. Select two spell traits that are school traits, you tattoo symbols of these traits onto your body. Once you have made this selection, it cannot be changed and the tattoos cannot be removed by any means.
Whenever you cast a spell with the chosen traits and the target fails the save or you succeeded at the spell attack roll, you gain Overcharge. In addition, while you have Overcharge you gain a number temporary hitpoints equal twice the highest level Arcanist spell you can cast.
You gain the Arcanist Exploit Magicmixing
Bladebound - You are bound to a weapon that grants you magical powers. This weapon is magical, but does not contain any innate Potency or Runes. You are trained in Martial Weapons and whenever your proficiency with Simple Weapons increases, you also gain that proficiency with Martial Weapons.
Whenever you succeed at a strike or cast a spell with the Transmutation School trait and the target fails the save or you succeeded at the spell attack roll, you gain Overcharge. In addition, while you have Overcharge your Bladebound weapon gains the benefits of a +1 potency rune.
You gain the Arcanist Exploit Dimensional Slide.
Wild Mage - You derive your power from the innate chaos of the world. Your proficiency bonus to Saves and Spell Attack rolls receives a -2 Status penalty which cannot be overcome. When you cast a spell, roll 1d4 and add the result to your Proficiency for that spell instance.
Whenever you cast a spell and the target fails the save or you succeed at the spell attack roll, you gain Overcharge. In addition, while you have Overcharge you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to Will Saves.
You gain the Arcanist Exploit Wild Surge
______________
Exploits
Exsanguinate - "As a single action, you can morph the blood in yourself and enemies to your whims. You deal 1 bleed damage to the target that triggered Overcharge, if that target was already bleeding, increase the amount by 1. In addition, you gain fast healing equal to the same amount dealt by this exploit until the target stops bleeding.
Heightened +1: +1 Bleed Damage and Fast Healing"
Bend Elements - (range 5ft) "If your last action was to cast a spell with an elemental trait that dealt damage, you may spend an additional action to move the effects of that spell to another target within range of the target that triggered Overcharge. This new target takes half damage after all effects of the original spell are applied.
Heightened +1: +5ft range
"
Magicmixing - "As a single action, you can trigger the effects of your other tattoo, blending the magic together. The target who triggered overcharge takes damage equal to 1d6 and you also take 1 damage as the tattoo magic burns your skin. The damage type is based on the school of your second tattoo:
Abjuration force damage
Conjuration or Transmutation force damage
Divination, Enchantment, or Illusion mental damage
Evocation a type the spell dealt, or force damage if the spell didn't deal damage
Necromancy negative damage
Heightened +1: The damage to your opponent increases by 1d6 and the damage to you increases by 1"
Dimensional Slide - "As a single action, you can teleport 10ft to a location you can plainly see that is not occupied. If you end your square next to an enemy, you may make a Strike as part of this movement.
Heightened +1: The distance you can teleport increases by 5ft"
Wild Surge - "As a single action, if your next action is to cast a spell, you can forgo your Wild Magic roll and instead gain a +3 bonus to your Arcane Spell Proficiency.
Heightened 5th: The casting time is reduced to a Free action."
I think you may have at least partially misunderstood what I was actually suggesting.
I was suggesting having arcanist style spellcasting replacing Arcane School (or at least the extra spell slot aspect of it), as I dont think you can add such a dramatically superior spellcasting style while maintaining a Wizards superior allotment of spells.
Partially, yes. I misread "Arcane bond" as "Thesis".
And separately adding a couple of lines of feats covering Arcane Exploits and the "magic devouring" core aspects of the Arcanist.
And since I made this exact same suggestion 1 post above your original post, of course I don't have an issue with it.
I still don't think swapping out the extra spell slots for neo-vancian casting would address the actual problem you brought up though.
All of these are both very distinct from each other and very easy to grok. Hybrid casting classes are in a bind, because this distinction wasn't as strong in 1E. We've seen just one such class get converted in Warpriest, and it got reduced to a subclass.
3. Investigators and Swashbucklers are both distinct classes rather than a subclass. Arguably the Slayer as well, if not exactly by name.
All of these are both very distinct from each other and very easy to grok. Hybrid casting classes are in a bind, because this distinction wasn't as strong in 1E. We've seen just one such class get converted in Warpriest, and it got reduced to a subclass.3. Investigators and Swashbucklers are both distinct classes rather than a subclass. Arguably the Slayer as well, if not exactly by name.
Hmmm counting Slayer is fine, but honestly, I wouldn't.
Slayer, Swashbuckler, Ninja, etc. were all set on fixing the "Rogue" problem IMO. The biggest issue in the transfer from 3.5 -> PF1 for the Rogue was that the Skill system changed that heavily nerfed Rogues by proxy of making almost everyone else way better and Rogue Talents being really underwhelming in a lot of regards.
The overarching change to 1 Skill Point +3 Trained was great for the game, but it hit Rogues by proxy.
That and (IMO) Evasion was extremely overvalued (but I generally do not like big power budgets for passive abilities) which is why the Ninja Ki Pool made such a difference (seriously, what would you rather have Evasion or Mirror Image with regularity).
In this edition, the Rogue is arguably one of the best Classes in terms of sheer power, robust concepts, and flavor.
I was dubious on the Swashbuckler, and somehow it tangoed its way into a safe space past the Rogue and Fighter.
Slayer is going to have to do some crazy new things to justify a niche. With Bounty Hunter Dedication, Assassin Dedication, and Shadowdancer Dedication present in the form of Archetypes (no missing class growth like in PF1) and the Rogue/Ranger/Fighter all in really great shape, it's just going to be TOUGH to justify a Slayer since most of their mechanics are straight-up covered already.
The best chance the Slayer has, IMO, to make a return is into the Drifter concept that's been floated around.
Shaman kind of got cannibalized by the Witch. In the PF1 days if I was asked what class to play if you really want to focus on a familiar pet then I'd say Shaman - Witch losing a lot of its Hex power to make its familiar more relevant treads on that ground.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shaman kind of got cannibalized by the Witch. In the PF1 days if I was asked what class to play if you really want to focus on a familiar pet then I'd say Shaman - Witch losing a lot of its Hex power to make its familiar more relevant treads on that ground.
Shaman might be able to move laterally into the Druid space though as the Spontaneous Primal.
Spirit and Totem were unique enough that it could work I think, you just have to differentiate that a bit.
Honestly, I felt Shaman were more heavily tied to objects that have spirits inside them or connections to the spirit world, so perhaps a Bonded Object of some kind that has intelligence/spirits/commune powers could work instead.
Masks, Staffs, Amulets, Dolls, etc. could be the types of objects we're talking here, and if we're being honest, I see those pop culture themes a lot that it makes sense.
Bonded Object might be the horse they bet on for integrating the Spirit connection instead of directly making it a creature.
IMO Arcanist from PF1 just should be on the long list and maybe never should be made. I think its main draw was its spellcasting which made their versatility insane.
Arcanist in 1e were amazing but honestly I feel they were just too good.
I feel 2e doesnt really need that though. Honestly I feel there are plenty more classes that should be added.
There are just so many interesting classes that I feel a character that was pretty much the best at both worlds really isnt necessary.