Fixing the Arcanist.

[Bobbybobby99]

I've been thinking up a setting lately, and I would really like to include the hybrid classes in it. It would be a gestalt, but multiclassing would be a no-no for anything but prestige classes, so it would be nice to add some variety. Most of the hybrid classes, at first glance, seem fairly balanced. The Arcanist, on the other hand, seems to make the sorcerer irrelevant. So, I was looking for some advice on possible fixes.

1. Don't use the Arcanist. I'm including this because otherwise someone is going to add it on as an extra option and advise me to do it, so I figured I might as well spare them the trouble.

2. Reduce spells prepared by one each spell level, to a minimum of one. For example, at level 18, the Arcanist would have one level 9 spell prepared, but at level 19 they would still only have one level 9 spell prepared, and at level 20 they would only have 2 level 9 spells prepared. This makes the sorcerer useful by making them more versatile on an individual day, while making the Arcanist more versatile overall.

3. Reduce spells per day by one/two, to a minimum of one. For example, at level 20, they would only have 4/3 spells per day for all their spell levels. This makes the sorcerer useful by having the Arcanist have very little endurance; the sorcerer can keep on casting for much longer.

4. Making the Arcanst terribly MAD, by basing their maximum spell level and their bonus spells on intelligence, while basing their spell's saving throws on charisma, or vise versa. This makes the sorcerer useful by forcing the Arcanist to invest resources more broadly, resulting in fewer spells per day and/or less competitive saving throws.

5. Reduce their number of arcane exploits from one every two levels, to one every three, four, or five levels. The three and four options seem insufficient on their own, but the reduction to once very five levels might be sufficient, if terribly dull.

Which one, or which combination, do you think would be the most balancing? Remember that I'm looking primarily for it to be balanced against the sorcerer, not in general. Right now I'm slightly leaning towards option 2 combined with option 4, but I'm not sure if that would make the Arcanist too weak relative to the sorcerer.

[Kurald Galain]

6. Require the Unlettered archetype, which gives you the Witch spell list rather than the Wizard's.

[The Vagabond]

Personally, my two cents on the issue is that you shouldn't Nerf the Arcanist, but rather buff somewhat the Sorcerer- My preffered method is to simply grant a Sorcerer an extra spell every level, like with the Human Favored Class Bonus. This both increases a Sorcerers versatility, and carves their own niech- Arcanist then lies between Wizard and Sorcerer in terms of Strategic and Tactical versatility- You lack as much Tactical stability as a Sorcerer (Fewer spells avalable per encounter), nor the strategic one of the Wizard (No single-casting of a spell you don't need later)

[Ilorin Lorati]

IMO the nerfs that Arcanist got to its most powerful exploits and abilities were already enough. Wizard still has a higher skill ceiling due to its ability to prepare different spells in each slot, and sorcerer is a better specialist and has better staying power.

[DarkOne-Rob]

This is such a Tier 1-2 problem (similar to the "First-World" problems that get social attention these days).

The Arcanist is arguably weaker than the Wizard for one significant reason - delayed spell level gains. In exchange they get some neat tricks and versatility.

Both the Sorcerer and Arcanist fill different niches, IMO. Even if you take the Blood Arcanist archetype, the Sorcerer is more focused, Charisma-based (which appeals to many character concepts), and has archetypes available to customize and manipulate the PC into some very interesting things. On the other hand, the Arcanist's niche is one of, again, versatility that the Sorcerer lacks.

So I wouldn't nerf the Arcanist unless you also address the balance of the other two classes (which is an exercise in complexity and frustration, given that the spells are the (often) over-powered facets to the classes). To address the OP's five options:

Unless you also ban the Wizard, this is not a decision that is based on power. It would be based on flavor, perhaps, but otherwise is not a balance-related decision.
Especially at low levels this will be crippling to the player of an Arcanist. At higher levels it might be manageable, but consider the impact on levels 1-3 at the very least before even seriously considering this. Would youplay a class that could prepare 1 level 1 spell per day for the first two levels, and 2 at level 3? I know I wouldn't, and I am currently playing an Arcanist at those levels. (It has been a real challenge preparing spells that proved useful daily.)
Reducing spells per day will mean the player of the Arcanist will be forced to either use the lackluster low-level exploits or shooting their crossbow (poorly) much earlier and more often. That doesn't sound like fun to me, but maybe it does to you...
To use an Arcanist's exploits you often need Charisma. If they are the unbalanced part of all this (which seems to contradict the issues of spells being the most powerful facet of the discussed classes), then they already are MAD. They need Intelligence for spells, Charisma for exploits, and Dexterity/Constitution/Wisdom for saves and other defenses. How much more MAD will actually make a difference?
Compare this to the Exploit Wizard archetype and tell me how much reason a player would have to choose the Arcanist class instead of the Wizard class. No good, IMO.

And I like the option of #6 (suggested by Kurald Galain), but not as a requirement. I think that is honestly more of a Witch "fix" if you ask me, but that's another discussion.

Speaking of the Witch class, how fair is it to give them Hexes as often as they do but decrease the exploit gains of the Arcanist?

[Bobbybobby99]

I should probably clarify that I'm much less interested in low levels that might be assumed. Any games played in this setting will likely be both high level/epic and gestalt. I realize that particular play style has very different concerns than regular play styles, and thus apologize for not stating them, though I did mention that it would be gestalt.

I really do think that the Arcanist, as current, is more powerful than the sorcerer, if perhaps not the wizard. It exchanges several good/mediocre abilities for several good/mediocre abilities, and it looses a few spells known on a given day. It then proceeds to recieve extreme bonuses to whole-campaign versatility. You cannot deny that it's method of casting is better than a sorcerers, speaking from mechanics.

1. In this setting, my current thought is that witches are about 4 times as common as arcanists, sorcerers are about 8 times as common as arcanists, and that wizards are about 24 times as common as arcanists; in other words, they should be rather rare.

2. Like I said, this probably won't be played at low levels, and if it was played at low levels it would be gestalt, making a reduction in utility much less concerning. If it discourages players from playing arcanists, great; see population demographics above. Also; pick a spell that can be used in a variety of creative ways, such as silent image or something more appropriate to the environment, and then proceed to spam it to hell and back.

3. I didn't particularly like this option anyways for thematic reasons, but it being gestalt does reduce a significant amount of the pain it may or may not cause.

4. It's really more thematic, but since spells remain the primary feature of almost every full caster (aside from the Druid) it would be rather easy to dump charisma and remain viable with this class, which I dislike.

5. Spontaneous Prepared spells are the reason. I likely wouldn't implement this with anything else, in any case.

So, I repeat the question I may have phrased a tad poorly; would combining option 2 and option 4 make this class weaker than the sorcerer?

[DMVerdandi]

Why would you want a class that is the synthesis of a wizard and a sorcerer to be weaker than both???
Seriously.

Really it's this. All of the classes are just names. They are surrounded around a bundle of rules and given names to differentiate them, but the only things that are really important to gameplay are the rules themselves. Crunch over fluff.

If all of that is how you really feel, how about this.

A. Replace wizard with arcanist.
B.Replace Sorcerer with arcanist.
C. Replace BOTH with arcanist.

Personally, all the things aside, The casting method of the arcanist is just about perfect. Technically the 3.5 spirit shaman casting is perfect, but arcanist is a close second.
It allows variety and consistency at the same time, two things that both the wizard and sorcerer couldn't have in the same class.

If the Arcanist is an available option, why would I want to play the other two. Flavor maybe, but the archetypes more than handle both forms of flavor that the sorcerer and wizard have (bloodlines, schools, signature spells, etc.)

Honestly, I would just go with option C. Why even deal with the other two anymore?
Arcanist spellcasting is both better for beginners to the game, and masters of it.

[DarkOne-Rob]

I should probably clarify that I'm much less interested in low levels that might be assumed. Any games played in this setting will likely be both high level/epic and gestalt. I realize that particular play style has very different concerns than regular play styles, and thus apologize for not stating them, though I did mention that it would be gestalt.
I have played gestalt in 3.5, and looked at it closely in PF. When it was originally imagined it was to combine two classes and deliberately excluded the option to take levels in any "Theurge" PrCs because they already did that. If you are going to allow the ACG Theurge classes into a gestalt game, I think you are already making a significant deviation from that premise, if not an outright mistake.

Gestalt games quickly become about combining class features for overwhelming power or versatility. High level games do the same. Allowing a versatile class like the Arcanist in a gestalt game may simply be too much.


I really do think that the Arcanist, as current, is more powerful than the sorcerer, if perhaps not the wizard. It exchanges several good/mediocre abilities for several good/mediocre abilities, and it looses a few spells known on a given day. It then proceeds to recieve extreme bonuses to whole-campaign versatility. You cannot deny that it's method of casting is better than a sorcerers, speaking from mechanics.
I don't present my evaluations on the class in a vacuum - check out Paizo and GitP threads on balance and in most cases the consensus is that the delayed spell level gain is a clear loss on the part of the Arcanist compared to the Wizard. When they catch up it gets better, but the very next level - oops, there it is again.

In addition, the Exploit Wizard archetype is nearly universally agreed to be significantly more powerful than the standard wizard or the Arcanist. In the case of the Exploit Wizard vs. standard Wizard the Exploit Wizard can replicate most of the standard Wizard's stuff more frequently using exploits (bad design on Paizo's part, IMO). In the case of Exploit Wizard vs. Arcanist, the Exploit Wizard gets the spells a level earlier and just has to be pickier about the exploits they choose (more argument against the archetype).

If you dislike the Arcanist and feel it is overpowered, you really need to ban the Exploit Wizard too.
------------------------

The Arcanist is more versatile than the Sorcerer. No argument. Their spellcasting system is specifically what does this. No argument. However, versatility =/= power in every case, nor does it take into account Sorcerer Archetypes and PC-build decisions that can essentially bring the Sorcerer up to the same level of versatility or power.

For example, play a Human Sage (Wildblood archetype) and take the favored class bonuses that allow additional spells known. You have more skill points, more spells available, and no weird, quirky abuses to explain it. If there are only so many worthwhile spells at each level to prepare and cast, this disparity becomes less and less impactful, and arguably disappears at high levels (where you are most concerned).

Finally, if you are building a Sorcerer for versatility you are going in a direction that the class was never intended to go. The Sorcerer is a focused specialist, and comparing it to the Arcanist (a class designed to be versatile) is going to show how one is Tier 2 and the other Tier 1, but the Tier System was never intended to be used to describe raw power. Most players of the two classes will be comparably powerful, one will just have the option to change that power into another power if they so choose.

Significant? Yes. Inappropriate? Your call, but I say "no."


1. In this setting, my current thought is that witches are about 4 times as common as arcanists, sorcerers are about 8 times as common as arcanists, and that wizards are about 24 times as common as arcanists; in other words, they should be rather rare.
Setting specific things are great for NPCs. If you don't want your PCs to be Arcanists, ban them. Discouraging them by nerfing the class is often the same thing...


2. Like I said, this probably won't be played at low levels, and if it was played at low levels it would be gestalt, making a reduction in utility much less concerning. If it discourages players from playing arcanists, great; see population demographics above. Also; pick a spell that can be used in a variety of creative ways, such as silent image or something more appropriate to the environment, and then proceed to spam it to hell and back.
Spamming one spell to hell and back is the opposite of what a versatile class like the Arcanist was designed to do. Again, I think you may be approaching this wrong - just ban the class.


4. It's really more thematic, but since spells remain the primary feature of almost every full caster (aside from the Druid) it would be rather easy to dump charisma and remain viable with this class, which I dislike.
Supposedly this is how to "best" optimize an Arcanist. However, all you have in that case is a Wizard with delayed spell progression and exploits. Better to take the Exploit Wizard archetype and ignore the class entirely.

Also, if you dislike this, what are you doing to fix Wizards being SAD? If they are the vast majority of arcane casters, you aren't lowering the power level much...


So, I repeat the question I may have phrased a tad poorly; would combining option 2 and option 4 make this class weaker than the sorcerer?
Certainly. It would be a severe nerf to the class and will likely result in no one playing it. If that is the goal, go for it. If you want someone to play the Arcanist, I would do something else (possibly nothing).

Good luck with your campaign!

[DarkOne-Rob]

C. Replace BOTH with arcanist.

If the Arcanist is an available option, why would I want to play the other two. Flavor maybe, but the archetypes more than handle both forms of flavor that the sorcerer and wizard have (bloodlines, schools, signature spells, etc.)

Honestly, I would just go with option C. Why even deal with the other two anymore?
In this case I actually disagree.

I like the spellcasting system of the Arcanist, but have made both Wizards and Sorcerers since its release. There are some things that the class simply does not do as well or as easily as either of its "parent" classes.

Each of the three classes has a place, builds that work, etc... Balance-wise they are all at the top of the food chain (compared to the other classes in terms of raw power and often in terms of versatility). If the issue is are they balanced against each others, the lines are so close that from the perspective of the poor mundanes it is irrelevant. At high-level and gestalted, they are going to be functionally indistinguishable.

[Psyren]

The Arcanist, on the other hand, seems to make the sorcerer irrelevant.

It doesn't.

Next question.

[Ssalarn]

It doesn't.

Next question.

I actually pretty much agree with this. The arcanist seems really powerful at a glance, but the sorcerer and wizard both have their own advantages. The three are all all well balanced to each other.

[Bobbybobby99]

I actually pretty much agree with this. The arcanist seems really powerful at a glance, but the sorcerer and wizard both have their own advantages. The three are all all well balanced to each other.

Well... since the overwhelming opinion is that it is not, in fact, unbalanced, then I suppose I just won't alter it at all. By overwhelming, I mean that I, apparently, am the only person that thinks it outclasses the sorcerer. Nevermind, I guess :smallfrown:.

[DarkOne-Rob]

Well... since the overwhelming opinion is that it is not, in fact, unbalanced, then I suppose I just won't alter it at all. By overwhelming, I mean that I, apparently, am the only person that thinks it outclasses the sorcerer. Nevermind, I guess :smallfrown:.
Don't be upset! You may perceive something we don't. That said, if our arguments sway you, good! Obviously I don't think much, if anything, needs to be done to the class in general, but I (probably) won't be playing in your game. What matters here is you and your players, not the forum.

In the end it is your campaign - do everything you can to make it fun for both you and your friends. If that means you ban a class or nerf it or whatever, then do it. Don't let us make the experience any worse for you!

[Ssalarn]

Some reasons the Arcanist isn't as powerful as it seems at a glance-

1) Immediate action counterspelling- Will be useless against a same level Wizard at many levels of play, since it can only be used against lower level spells unless you spend multiple exploits. Also, costs you both a point from your pool and a spell slot, so using it causes you to hemorrhage resources.

2) Spellcasting mechanic- Sure, it's very efficient, but it has to be. You get non-specialist Wizard slots on Sorcerer advancement, so at any given time both of the parent classes will have more spells. Arcanist needs the efficiency of his spellcasting mechanic to compete.

3) Exploits- Again, sure, they're cool, but you also have issues with needing CHA if you use any that grant a save, the earlier mentioned issue with the Counterspell exploit, etc. The CHA dependency is an issue if you want to use the Sorcerer bloodline options as well.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, the arcanist just comes off a sorc missing some slots and a better casting mechanic and casting stat. It's really not that bad, especially since sorcerer has a few tricks (like the Kitsune sorc build) that Arcanist doesn't get.

Exploits are pretty dumb, though. Not because I think they are OP, but because trying to get them to work with casting stat optimization and survival stats is a pain. Really, it's much better if you dump Cha. :s

[Kurald Galain]

2) Spellcasting mechanic- Sure, it's very efficient, but it has to be. You get non-specialist Wizard slots on Sorcerer advancement, so at any given time both of the parent classes will have more spells. Arcanist needs the efficiency of his spellcasting mechanic to compete.

Sure, but in my experience a sorcerer has way more slots per day than he actually needs, so having less slots than a sorc doesn't strike me as a big deal. Also, this limit can be raised by throwing money at it, if you want.

I think the main reason why the arcanist isn't as powerful as it seems is because most exploits are lacklustre. In fact, two of the best exploits are those that give you a wizard school power and a sorcerer bloodline power.

[Ssalarn]

Sure, but in my experience a sorcerer has way more slots per day than he actually needs, so having less slots than a sorc doesn't strike me as a big deal. Also, this limit can be raised by throwing money at it, if you want.


Wizards and Sorcerers can throw money at it for more spells too, so that's a moot point. They can maintain their lead as easily as the Arcanist can try to close it. And a Sorcerer may not use all his spells, but I generally find they'll use most or all of their highest level ones, which is the big thing that matters as far as their advantage in having more slots. Their wealth of low level slots can also equate to a direct increase in their total available wealth, since they'll be less reliant on consumables for simple utility and buffs than the Arcanist.



I think the main reason why the arcanist isn't as powerful as it seems is because most exploits are lacklustre. In fact, two of the best exploits are those that give you a wizard school power and a sorcerer bloodline power.

Pretty much agreed here. Most of their best tricks that don't bleed them dry inside a single combat are just doing things the parent classes already do better and more efficiently.

[Spore]

Sure, but in my experience a sorcerer has way more slots per day than he actually needs, so having less slots than a sorc doesn't strike me as a big deal. Also, this limit can be raised by throwing money at it, if you want.

Then your DM plays by the 15 minute adventuring day rule, only does one encounter per day or you simply don't know how to (ab)use the abundance of spell slots.

A sorcerer:

- explodes a Fireball upon the intricate mechanical trap designed to poison the intruder
- uses a Fly spell "just in case" the bridge might collapse
- summon an Azata to heal your comrade (turning your 4th level slot into a cure moderate wounds)
- spam long term low level buffs like Resist Energy, Shield, Mage Armor
- use utility spells very frequently (another Scrying cant hurt if it is not a time sensitive matter)

My gaming group feels like a sorcerer (or oracle) is more useful most of the time than a wizard or cleric when they are human or can use the human favored class bonus. They have soo many spells it's not even funny. Be it "fantasy whatsapp, aka Sending" or Scrying, or Teleport, or Plane Shift, or just plain old magic missiles. Sorcerers are played very quick and responsive rather than the slow and reactive gameplay of wizards, arcanists and clerics.