(PF1) Arcanist vs. Sorcerer

[Endarire]

Considering only these 2 classes and all of their archetypes in a Pathfinder game with PRD access, no 3.x content, and knowing nothing else about the campaign, which of these classes is better, how, and why? More specifically, what are the main cons and pros of each?

Thankee!

[Eldonauran]

That is a lot of information to consider. Each of those classes is powerful in their own right and the Arcanist can be equal to or more powerful than a sorcerer of equal level. The only real trade offs are the ability for the Sorcerer to be crossblooded and have more spells per day out of the gate (ie, no items), versus the Arcanist versatile daily spell casting and exploits.

Really, you just want to ask yourself if you want to have flexibility and a spellbook, or do you want a more focused spellcaster without a spellbook? Oh, and metamagic will possibly sway your opinion as well. Prepared versus spontaneous has some very different mechanics regarding it (ie, spontaneous have to cast longer while prepared have to prepare the spell in advance).

My personal opinion going into a game blind? Arcanist.

[Psyren]

"Better" is highly subjective, which makes this question too broad.

I like how Arcanists prepare spells, but everything else about them could have been archetypes of either Wizard or Sorcerer, so I prefer Sorcerer.

[exelsisxax]

Razmiran sorc is a very strong tier 1, able to use scrolls to cast any spells level 8 or below without any material costs without expending those scrolls. You need to be able to get scrolls and nothing else to be awesome.

Arcanist is basically just a funky wizard with spell delay, unless you can use fiendish proboscis to have essentially unlimited pool points.

Either can be very, very strong. But without knowing anything, nobody can possibly know which would be better. For all we know ranged attacks are banned and monsters are spell immune, making blade adept arcanist the smart choice.

[Ramza00]

So an Arcanist has 2 less spells per day than an Arcanist of each level, but that means you still are rocking the same amount of power until you ran out of those high level spell slots.

A Sorcerer has its bloodline but there are archetypes that give an Arcanist those Bloodlines in exchange for some of their Arcanist Exploit "bonus feats" (not technically a bonus feat.)

----

Pretty much it comes down to which archetypes of Sorcerer you like, and which archetypes of Arcanist you like.

----

Likewise there are archetypes for other class such as Wizard that make it a pseudo Arcanist or a pseudo Sorcerer. Find what you like the style of play for both options are good.

[Kurald Galain]

Generally speaking, arcanist exploits are (much) stronger than most bloodlines, and arcanists are more versatile since they can swap spells and quick-study, and arcanists can more easily pump out high save DCs. That Razmiran archetype that everyone considers oh-so-much stronger than baseline sorcerer? Yeah, arcanist does that by default, and more.

Frankly, ever since the arcanist was first printed, I haven't seen anyone make a sorcerer any more. (although Draconic bloodline is probably still best if you're into blasting).

[Calthropstu]

If all of the pfsrd is allowed, including 3rd party, SORCERER.

By a MASSIVE margin. Why? Because they can purchase a one use per day item allowing for psychic reformation, turning them into THE number 1 class in the game.

Otherwise, I say it has to depend on an individual's play style. Myself, I'd pick sorcerer. I do not like swapping my spells every day. I prefer to get creative with what I DO have.

[Kurald Galain]

By a MASSIVE margin. Why? Because they can purchase a one use per day item allowing for psychic reformation, turning them into THE number 1 class in the game.

So taking 10 minutes to swap a spell once per day is somehow considered more powerful than taking one round to swap a spell multiple times per day? Because arcanist does the latter, without requiring third-party.

[Calthropstu]

So taking 10 minutes to swap a spell once per day is somehow considered more powerful than taking one round to swap a spell multiple times per day? Because arcanist does the latter, without requiring third-party.

1: it's not 1 spell, it's all your spells. And your feats. And your skills. And any other class feature selections.
2: The arcanist is restricted to his spellbook. The sorcerer can select ANYTHING.

[Kurald Galain]

1: it's not 1 spell, it's all your spells. And your feats. And your skills. And any other class feature selections.

Sure, but if you do that on the fly, you get like a -10 to all skill checks and saving throws and caster level, and -50 to hit points, for a full day. That strikes me as pretty harsh.

[RifleAvenger]

Arcanist is probably my favorite PF full arcane caster (with the caveat that I play at a table where no full casters have the 1-level delay compared to wiz/cleric/druid). However, I find that it has trade-offs in versatility compared to both sorcerer and wizard.

Compared to a sorcerer, an arcanist has fewer spells per day AND fewer spells prepared at a given time (taking sorcerer bloodline spells and possibly human FCB into account). This isn't something to take lightly; at low to even mid levels, I've often found myself really torn between preparation choices as an arcanist. Whereas a sorcerer has a little more wiggle room for building a generalized "taking all comers" kit. However, arcanist also has a spellbook and Quick Study, meaning an arcanist is more likely to have access to a given solution to a problem at all. Narratively, and arguably at tables that skew heavily to combat-as-war, that versatility is incredibly powerful (hence why wizard is still really powerful even with my table's houserule buffing other full arcane casters).

For me, being able to change my spell list daily, apply the precise castings from that list approriately to what I encounter, and even change that list on the fly (at a cost) sells me on arcanist. I can deal with fewer spells/day than a sorcerer or wizard when it's more likely I won't have any "wasted" slots.

A final thing to note is that arcanist is a more resource-management heavy class, since they have to manage both spells prepared, spells/day (fewer compared to their brethren), and the arcane reservoir. This intensifies with an archetype like occultist, which is really good, but ties its core class feature to a heavy reservoir expenditure. Meanwhile, sorcerer has more gas in the tank spell/day wise and limited-use bloodline features are usually less integral to the class operating at full effectiveness. This is a matter of preference, imo, not power.

[Ramza00]

If all of the pfsrd is allowed, including 3rd party, SORCERER.

By a MASSIVE margin. Why? Because they can purchase a one use per day item allowing for psychic reformation, turning them into THE number 1 class in the game.

Otherwise, I say it has to depend on an individual's play style. Myself, I'd pick sorcerer. I do not like swapping my spells every day. I prefer to get creative with what I DO have.

Psychic Mage Wizard has that built in.

And while a custom magic item can be created. We have a specific pricing for a non-custom magic item.

Map of the Mind
Aura moderate telepathy; ML 7th
; Slot -; Price 16,000 gp; Weight –

DESCRIPTION

This twisting map attunes to its wielder upon being picked up and alters its image to show a representation of the internal layout of the owner’s mind. The owner of the map can manifest psychic reformation on himself by altering the map with the desired choices to be made. After being used, the map cannot be used again for a week, even if it becomes attuned to another creature.

CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Feats Craft Wondrous Item, psychic reformation; Cost 8,000 gp

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative...ap_of_the_Mind

[Segev]

I'm hearing a lot of "Sorcerer is better!" I am not claiming this is wrong, because I have never been well-versed in the PF sorcerer. However, I do have to ask: what do sorcerers get that makes them better than arcanists? Arcanists, on the surface, look to me like sorcerers with wizard flexibility. The only argument is arcanist vs. wizard, by this perception, and then only because wizards get spell levels one level earlier.

Why, mechanically, would you ever play a sorcerer if you could play an arcanist? What does an arcanist give up that a sorcerer has?

[RifleAvenger]

Why, mechanically, would you ever play a sorcerer if you could play an arcanist? What does an arcanist give up that a sorcerer has?

I'll preface this by saying I've never played a sorcerer, but I have played arcanists. Thus, take this with a big grain of salt, since I lack actual in-context experience with sorcerers.

1. Sorcerers get 1.5x more spells/day. Past low level, I actually find this sorta meh by mid-level (when there's a lot of spell slots to go around and spammable magic items are affordable) unless the GM really likes grindy play.
   
   
2. Sorcerers will actually have more spells "prepared" at a given time than an arcanist. Sorcerers get bloodline spells known, and possibly human favored class bonus for 1 spell known/level beginning at 4th level (you'd only get cantrips prior to that, arguably not worth it). Quick Study somewhat negates this penalty for arcanist, while greatly increasing the spellbook silver bullet advantage arcanist has.
   
   
3. Some minor stuff, like social skills for class skills, though that is undercut by not being an INT class and thus functionally having fewer skills.

Sorcerer's biggest advantage seems to be that if you want to base your caster around one set of tricks, sorcerer will be the better choice based on being able to do them more often. Since the limited # of spells prepared at a given moment is my biggest bugbear when playing arcanist, I would bet playing a human sorcerer would alleviate that issue a bit once Favored Class Bonus kicks in (though personally, not enough to make up for being stuck with the list forever!). Having fewer core resources to manage, and not needing to deal with that resource to counterbalance arcanist's heavily limited prep slots (Quick Study), will also be a draw to the sorcerer for certain types of player.

Past that, I think it comes down to picking nits and archetypes, which is beyond the scope of my little post; some people are bringing up specific sorcerer archetypes to claim it's better. Arcanist exploits are generally stronger than sorcerer bloodline powers, and if nothing else the a la carte nature of exploits lets you avoid picking anything outright bad or irrelevant to a build. When making niche builds like blasters or 9th-level-casting-gishes, I find they have tradeoffs on paper and can't comment on actual play since I've never played any sorcerers.

PS: I do have a sorcerer/cleric mystic theurge built on paper, albeit it applies my table houserule buffs to non-wizard spell progression and uses the 3.5 dragon magazine feat that enables early entry. I used sorcerer over arcanist solely because it offered more non-scaling, frontloaded abilities. While that build a bad example on its own given how far from the base rules it is, I do think that sorcerer makes a better dip than arcanist.

PSS: I play at a table where arcanists and wizards get new spell-levels at the same time, and wizard still has its perks. Wizards can prepare X different spells in X number of slots, whereas arcanist has to burn reservoir and full actions to break out of its more limited number of spells prepared. Specialist wizards get more spells/day than arcanists. Scribe Scroll for free is actually a pretty sick perk, imo, given how much scrolls can do to extend both immediate versatility and casting uptime. Arcanists can never get wizard discoveries, but there's a wizard archetype that gets exploits.

Finally, YMMV on this one, but technically the rules for arcanists never say they can leave slots open (and the core rules only refer to wizard, cleric, and druid). If the table plays that way (mine does), Quick Study becomes a near de-facto exploit tax and its point cost needs to be paid any time a silver bullet is needed.

[Psyren]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't actually say Sorcerer was better. And again, I haven't seen a definition of "better" that will help this discussion anyway.

[Calthropstu]

It should also be noted that sorcerers are charisma based while arcanists are int.

There is a difference in play styles that is important to note. Many people used to dumping charisma will see the arcanist as an ideal alternative to a sorcerer. I prefer charisma based characters.

[Maat Mons]

I've never played either class. In fact, I've played very little Pathfinder at all.

This thread had prompted me to read up on Arcanist for the first time. My initial impression is that Arcanist looks pretty tempting.

Both classes get 34 general, non-cantrip spells known/prepared at 20th level. Sorcerer get additional 17 general, non-cantrip spells known if they're human. Interestingly, that's exactly +50%.

Sorcerers also get 9 bloodline spells known. Arcanists can use the School Savant or Elemental Master archetypes to get 9 extra spells prepared, but with limitations. The Collegiate Initiate archetype lets an Arcanist sort of have an extra 20 spells known. Except they come from the Druid list, can't be changed, and require spending points form your Arcane Reservoir. Kind of weird.

Is Razmiran Priest just the non OGL name for False Priest? I though the cool part of that was that you can sort of cast spells that aren't on your spell list. Have people been using it with divine scrolls of spells that are already on the Sorcerer spell list, and treating it like extra spells known? That never occurred to me. My thought was "Oh cool, if we don't have a Cleric, I can do downtime condition removal without expending wealth."

Previously, I'd figured that, if I ever played an arcane caster in Pathfinder, I'd go human Sorcerer with the Sage bloodline for Intelligence-based casting. This was because Intelligence is usually my preferred mental ability score, and I don't like having to decide ahead of time how many times I'm going to be casting a single spell. Now, I think Arcanist would be my go-to Intelligence-based caster.

But I still would consider playing Sorcerer for an "eternal beauty" build. That would involve Imperious Bloodline for the "eternal" part. I know Arcanist can get that bloodline too. But Sorcerer, with it's focus on Charisma, would be there for the "beauty" part. I know Charisma isn't strictly tied to appearance, but I like to associate them anyway.

51 general, non-cantrip spells known is probably good enough. And, in a small, illogical way, it makes me happy that my character doesn't have to keep looking stuff up in a book.

[Kurald Galain]

Is Razmiran Priest just the non OGL name for False Priest? I though the cool part of that was that you can sort of cast spells that aren't on your spell list. Have people been using it with divine scrolls of spells that are already on the Sorcerer spell list, and treating it like extra spells known? That never occurred to me. My thought was "Oh cool, if we don't have a Cleric, I can do downtime condition removal without expending wealth."

Yes. In theory, Razmiran Priest is "OMG cast all cleric spells at will, totally tier 0!" In practice, spending your (e.g.) 5th-level slots on 5th-level arcane spells is usually better than spending them on 4th-level divine spells (that you still need to buy somewhat-expensive scrolls for). But they are good for healing/utility if you don't have a divine caster in the party.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

That Razmiran archetype that everyone considers oh-so-much stronger than baseline sorcerer? Yeah, arcanist does that by default, and more.

Could you explain how? Because I admit, if there's an arcanist feature, exploit or archetype that lets them use spell slots to activate scrolls, I missed it.

[Thunder999]

Sorcerer these possible advantages:

• Crossblooded, there's a few powerful combos out there, but it comes with very big downsides, you delay your new spells by a whole level, hurt your will save and lock yourself out of any other archetypes.
• Spells per day (unless you're crossblooded), you have more, it's nice but not too big by higher levels.
• Bloodline mutations, these make for a very good blaster and don't really matter to anyone else.
• As a consequence of crossblooded and bloodline mutations sorcerer is definitely the best blaster class, though that's not exactly the optimal use of a full caster.
• Favoured class bonus for specific races, I'm mostly thinking of the amazing enchantment DC boost from kitsune.
• Razmiran Priest, arcanist cannot do this, you practically turn scrolls of divine spells into pages of spell knowledge, admittedly at a level higher, but you also don't need material components so can freely spam stuff like restoration and resurrection (that last one is crazy when you realise what it means for resurrecting NPCs, no reason not to now)

Arcanist has these

• The powerful prepared/spontaneous hybrid that's easily the most versatile/flexible setup in the game.
• Quick study exploit to change a prepared spell as a full round action, which makes them without doubt the best class in the game at responding to stuff with the perfect spell.
• Other strong exploits like potent magic and dimensional slide
• The ability to grab a wizard's school or sorcerer's bloodline via archetypes.
• Being intelligence based (you can dump charisma since only consume spells cares and it's minimum 1 so a charisma of 1 and a charisma of 13 are functionally identical).

I'd say that the sorcerer has the advantage if:

• You want to be using divine spells with Razmiran priest, probably to replace the cleric in a party where noone wants to play one.
• You want to make a blaster
• You want to make an enchanter
• You're undead and want to make everything charisma based.

But the arcanist does everything else better.

Oh and the main material component cheese I can see for a Razmiran priest are:
[list][*]Limited wish from the construct subdomain[*]Permanency from the rites subdomain[*]Symbol spells, particularly combined with that permanency

There's other spells of course, but those are the big ones that come to mind.

[Ramza00]

Could you explain how? Because I admit, if there's an arcanist feature, exploit or archetype that lets them use spell slots to activate scrolls, I missed it.

Kurald Galain was not being literal, but let me explain.

Quick Study (Su)

The arcanist can prepare a spell in place of an existing spell by expending 1 point from her arcane reservoir. Using this ability is a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. The arcanist must be able to reference her spellbook when using this ability. The spell prepared must be of the same level as the spell being replaced.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hyb...uick-study-su/

So for the cost of 1 Full Round Action, 1 Arcane Point of their Reservoir, and casting the spell you can have any wizard / sorc / arcanist spell on the fly.

This is similar but not the same as The False Priest / Razmiran Priest from Inner Sea Magic.

False Channel (Su)
At 9th level, the false priest can use his own magic to power spell completion and spell trigger items that use divine spells. He expends a sorcerer spell slot that is at least 1 level higher than the level of the spell he’s trying to activate, then makes a Use Magic Device check. If he succeeds, the item’s spell occurs and the item or charge is not expended. If he fails, nothing happens. Whether he succeeds or fail, his spell slot is expended.

This ability replaces the bloodline power gained at 9th level.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/cor...zmiran-priest/

Thus UMD Check, a spell slot higher by 1, and you need to have a spell completion / spell trigger item. Oh yeah the caster level and ability modifier for a scroll is not based off your stats and caster level but based off a scroll. Now a staff does not have that downside but staffs cost a lot more money to have in your equipment.

On the subject of equipment costs. What are the scroll costs for various cleric spells.

_,_25 gp 1st level spell, CL 01
_,225 gp 1st level spell, CL 09
_,375 gp 1st level spell, CL 15

_,150 gp 2nd level spell, CL 03
_,450 gp 2nd level spell, CL 09
_,750 gp 2nd level spell, CL 15

_,375 gp 3rd level spell, CL 05
_,675 gp 3rd level spell, CL 09
1,125 gp 3rd level spell, CL 15

_,700 gp 4th level spell, CL 07
_,900 gp 4th level spell, CL 09
1,500 gp 4th level spell, CL 15

1,125 gp 5th level spell, CL 09
1,875 gp 5th level spell, CL 15

1,650 gp 6th level spell, CL 11
2,250 gp 6th level spell, CL 15

2,275 gp 7th level spell, CL 13
2,625 gp 7th level spell, CL 15

3,000 gp 8th level spell, CL 15

1/2 that cost if you have a friendly cleric who can craft, those costs are if you bought the scrolls on the open market. I included caster level 9 for you get that ability at level 9, I also included the minimum caster level to make a scroll, and 15th caster level for you can use up to 8th level spells (with 9th level spell slots) and 15 is the minimum Caster Level of 8th level spells. The net effect is to give you an idea of the range of costs.

As you can see it can cost a pretty penny to add all those scrolls to your inventory, to make you more versaltile.

If you add 3 1st, 3 2nd, 3 3rd, 3 4th level scrolls to a 9th level character at full caster level we are talking 6,750 gp which is 15% of your Wealth By Level. I still consider this trade worth it, but 15% of your WBL for 12 new spells known (which still require UMD and still require a higher level spell slot) is still an opportunity cost which you should be mindful of.

------




So what Kurald Galain was saying in effect (not literally what he said) is an Arcanist can have any spell known that a Wizard knows with a single round.

By contrast the False Priest is like an early entry mystic theurge but without the extra spell slots, 1 side has no spells known lost, but the other side still casts 3 levels behind what a normal cleric would cost since you are feeding 5th level sorcerer slots at lvl sorcerer 10 to cast similar spells a 4th level cleric spell which a normal single class cleric can cast at 7th level.

False Priest is good, but it is very similar to a mystic theurge. It is more power but it is a marginal increase of power.

Is having Sorcerer+Cleric but Cleric is 3 class levels behind normal Cleric vs Arcanist which is a spontaneous wizard and is only 1 level behind a wizard with spell access and same spell access as a sorcerer. Which is superior? They are roughly equivalent is the answer.

-----





PS if you really, really need a cleric spell on an arcanist (instead of False Priest Sorcerer in this comparison) that is what UMD plus a scroll is for. Arcanists adding spells to their spellbook has a formula of Spell Level * Spell Level * 10 thus an 8th level spell is 640 gp instead of 3,000 gp, a 3rd level spell is 90 gp instead of 375 gp. Thus an arcanist can spend some of their wealth by level to have Cleric Spells they do not mind using once in order to get rid of nasty status conditions, healing, and so on.

PPS: Exploiter Wizards are better Arcanists than Arcanists if your only goal is "spell versatility." This is because they get spells 1 level earlier than Arcanist. The downside is it is harder for an Exploiter Wizard to recharge their reservoir but there are ways around this. Now an Arcanist can be better than Exploiter Wizard in other things but if spell versatility and higher level spell slots are your goal than Exploiter Wizard is where it is at.

PPPS: If mixing 3.5 and Pathfinder, than taking 2 feats and 1 trait for Spell Mastery+Uncanny Forethought+Magical Knack (trait) is the king of versality. You get to leave a number of spell slots equal to your Int modifier and you can cast those spells spontaneously. The downside is those spells are a full round action instead of a standard action and there are -2 caster level. Well Magical Knack fixes the -2 caster level and this is faster than fast study with the amount of actions it takes. Furthermore you can have more variety of which archetypes you take with this build.

-----




In summary lots of these options are good. False Priest is a superior sorcerer to a normal sorcerer. That said is it better than an Arcanist who uses Fast Study. That is debatable but I say no. Yet both builds are good and can easily have versatility and power to handle almost any encounter thrown at them. And remember you still have party members to pick up the slack of what you can't fix yourself.