# What is the benifiet of the Arcanist?



## anondragon (May 2, 2005)

Hi All,
      I've been playing with the EOM system and have been really pleased with the results in game play.  While an EOM evoker doesn't stand up to a non-EOM evoker all of the spell effects seem to work well with everything else.

       The one thing that I've had trouble understanding was why the arcanist is a desirable class.  If I understand, they exploit the ability to memorize spells.  The give up 1/2 of their lists but they gain a couple of feats to help them cast spells (+2 to the check).  I've looked over it again and again and all I have to say is that I don't get it.  Am I missing something.  It seems like the arcanist receives very little to insure that his spells don't fizzle, especially with fewer spell lists.

Thanks,
AnonDragon


----------



## RangerWickett (May 2, 2005)

Looking at it now, I can't quite figure out what I was thinking. I must've mucked up a number or two in there.  I mean sure, right now it's still pretty easy for a 5th level arcanist to cast any spell he wants if it's in his spellbook (D20 +7 vs. DC 16), which is a 60% chance of success, but yeah, that's not too good.  Maybe the Arcanist should gain a +10 bonus instead of a +2 bonus.

That would make it impossible to fail to cast a spell you prepare (1 MP = DC 12 vs. d20 +11).

Hmm.  You raise an interesting point.  I need to look at this more closely.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (May 2, 2005)

I saw an idea somewhere to replace the Max MP='caster level limit with Max MP=HD, and give the Mage a +1 bonus to max MP per 4 levels of some such. If you used that, would you give the Arcanist the bonus Max MP, too?


----------



## RangerWickett (May 2, 2005)

Yes, the MP Limit = HD option will be part of the core rules whenever we release a full revision.  You also get +1 MP Limit for every 5 levels of Mage (or Arcanist).

Here's the current arcanist changes I'm proposing.

*Arcane Student:*  The Arcanist gains Arcane Student as a bonus feat at 1st level.  If the Arcanist already has this feat, he instead gains a bonus feat from the Arcanist bonus feat list. Additionally, the Arcanist can take 10 on his caster level check to cast prepared spells or spells from spellbooks.

*Arcane Mastery:*  The Arcanist gains Arcane Mastery as a bonus feat at 10th level.  If the Arcanist already has this feat, he instead gains a bonus feat from the Arcanist bonus feat list. Most Arcanists keep multiple spell books of high-MP spells.

Additionally, the Arcanist may add his Intelligence modifier to caster level checks to cast prepared spells. Since he can take 10 when doing that, a typical 10th level arcanist (Int 18) with the arcane student feat has a +16 bonus to his caster level check, letting him safely cast 15 MP spells.



How's that look?


----------



## Thomas5251212 (May 3, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Yes, the MP Limit = HD option will be part of the core rules whenever we release a full revision. You also get +1 MP Limit for every 5 levels of Mage (or Arcanist).
> 
> Here's the current arcanist changes I'm proposing.
> 
> ...




It certainly would help; I was somewhat puzzled by why anyone would play an Arcanist as written too.

While we're on the topic, can I ask a related question?  

Arcanists seem pretty heavily dependent on acquiring outside written spells; but the text on spellbooks and the like is a bit vague on how common they are.  

In addition, its somewhat hard to figure out from what's written if they're whether they're either too useful or not useful at all to a routine mage.  I went back over this last night but might have missed it; is there any reason for a normal mage to bother to write his Signatures in a spell book?  He doesn't seem to need the books (and seems capable of putting together new Signatures in just a few minutes as far as I can tell) so why would he bother?  

And if there isn't a good reason to other than to bootstrap less skilled mages, how available can one presume they'd be?  

As I said, the confusion is that on one hand there doesn't seem much reason for most mages to make them; on the other hand, they're cheap to make and not clearly time consuming, and once you write them down, as far as I can tell any scribe could duplicate them.

Am I confused here somewhere?


----------



## RangerWickett (May 3, 2005)

Magic's like a martial art, and a spellbook is like a martial arts training manual.  Someone who knows how it works doesn't need it, but he might want to share his knowledge with others, maybe to get students, or to make money, or to spread his name.

In the core rules, buying a 9th level spell and scribing it in your own book costs 1350 gp.  EOM spells aren't nearly as valuable, so I'd cost spells at 10 gp per MP, as a rough guideline.


----------



## anondragon (May 4, 2005)

As written your arcanist looks pretty good.  Of course there is a good
incentive to take only one level of Arcanist to get the automatic 10
on the rolls, maybe there is a way around that?  A class level bonus
to spell casting.  i.e. you may take 10 for any spell that uses MP
equal to or less than your class level (plus feat and class bonuses?).


----------



## anondragon (May 4, 2005)

*bigger picture*

When I first saw the rules for memorizing spells in EOM I was pretty excited.  After reading them further I discovered that they were practically useless (I did like the reading high level spells from spell books though).  As written with a DC of 11+spell level it makes it difficult for any but high level mages to use this technique.  And that was at the cost of devoting MP to the spell for the day.   

The feats to improve this were not very impressive.  How did they fair in play testing?  I imagine that the threat of losing a spell would be pretty large penalty for anyone to try using them.


I've been playing with new systems for the past day, those that seem fair (ability to cast mp spells 1/2 your level with little failure and then a rapid increase) were too complex to use.  But I have a small rule change that might make memorizing spells a little more worthwhile. (whether this should be a new rule, an addition to a new feat or an addition to the arcane student feat is for discussion.  I favor adding it to the arcane student). The exact numbers might need to be tweaked as I haven't worked out the math (value of the cummulative penalty, max number of rounds).  


Proposal:

If you fail your DC to cast the memorized spell, you may retry that roll the next round with a +2 penalty to cast the spell.  A
spellcaster may attempt a number of retries on consecutive rounds equal to their intelligence bonus (if positive).  The +2 penalties are cumulative for each round.  If the spell caster initiates a spell and fails to cast it (by choosing to stop or by attempting the spell for a number of rounds equal to their intelligence bonus) they suffer the ill effects mentioned in the book.  

Special: Due to the strain of trying to re-control the magic
threatening to break loose, the spellcaster must make concentration checks for damage taken before and during their next round.


Example:  A 4th level mage, Dar, attempts to cast a 4MP spell the DC is 15.  Dar rolls a 7 on his first round(a total of 11) and is now in danger of losing control of his spell.  Dar chooses to try to wrestle control of the spell.  As his Int is 17 he has a +3 bonus and can attempt to cast the spell for 3 more rounds.  The next round, the DC is 17, Dar rolls a 10(total 14) and grimly decides to try it next round.  Meanwhile he is attacked with an arrow.  Dar must make a concentration check for the damage of the arrow in order to keep the spell from failing and backlashing on him.  The next round the dc of the spell is 19.  Dar rolls a 12 (total 16).  Dar can choose to try one more round to cast the spell but he decides not to as the DC would be 21 and it would consume another round that he could use toward
another spell.  At that point he takes damage as specified in the
book.


Variations: The cumulative penalty applied to the concentration check and damage received for failing to cast the spell.  

The premise of this is to allow casters a way to (almost) ensure that lower power spells are cast while providing an exciting component to fighting off the possibility of a failed spell.


----------



## anondragon (May 4, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Yes, the MP Limit = HD option will be part of the core rules whenever we release a full revision.  You also get +1 MP Limit for every 5 levels of Mage (or Arcanist).





This is meant as a replacement for the feat that allows a caster to do this for one spell list?(sorry don't have the book with me right now) Or as a general revision to the rules on MP limit.  The main problem with this is that it would invalidate a lot of the neat tricks of the 1/2 casters (godhand and longwalker) that make them able to cast higher MP spells. 

As just a feat it looks very tempting to my spellcasters. An
adjustment that each feat applies this rule to (1 + intellegence
bonus) spell lists would make it look very nice.


----------



## Thomas5251212 (May 4, 2005)

anondragon said:
			
		

> When I first saw the rules for memorizing spells in EOM I was pretty excited. After reading them further I discovered that they were practically useless (I did like the reading high level spells from spell books though). As written with a DC of 11+spell level it makes it difficult for any but high level mages to use this technique. And that was at the cost of devoting MP to the spell for the day.




As far as I can tell, the big advantage to prepared spells is it extends your Signature capability; rather than tying up a Signature slot with a spell you'll likely need in a hurry when you need it, but probabily won't need many of, you can prepare one of them and save your Signature slots for things you may need repeatedly.  For example, I can see using it to prepare a single countermagical effect if you don't expect to run into an enemy spellcaster, but want to have at least one ready if you get suprised.


----------



## Verequus (May 4, 2005)

A word regarding your memorizing comment: You have only to do the check, if you don't know already all the spell lists involved. But this still means, that those memorizable spells are ones, you could use as signature spells yourself (unless you are using Arcane Mastery). This is only useful for Dispel Magic spells or if you need a spell castable as standard action and you don't have enough signature spells available. But I think, in most cases you can cast the spell from a book instead devoting the MP.

In the end, I believe, that your comment has still a good amount of validity, but I'll let RW decide, if memorizing is too hard.



			
				anondragon said:
			
		

> This is meant as a replacement for the feat that allows a caster to do this for one spell list?(sorry don't have the book with me right now) Or as a general revision to the rules on MP limit. The main problem with this is that it would invalidate a lot of the neat tricks of the 1/2 casters (godhand and longwalker) that make them able to cast higher MP spells.
> 
> As just a feat it looks very tempting to my spellcasters. An adjustment that each feat applies this rule to (1 + intellegence bonus) spell lists would make it look very nice.




As the inventor of this rule, I can say, that it is meant as a general rule, not as an additional feat. Although it does invalidate a bit the special abilities of both classes, the "MP limit = HD"-rule is primarily responsible to eliminate the weakness of multiclassed casters, which have levels in non-caster classes (or casters in classes, who give a reduced amount of caster levels compared to the Mage). This means, that a few rules have to be rewritten, but this a small price compared to the effectiveness and elegance of this rule.

A sidenote: Please don't use hard line breaks while you write posts - they look simply awful on a bigger screen. Thanks in advance.


----------



## anondragon (May 4, 2005)

Thomas5251212 said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, the big advantage to prepared spells is it extends your Signature capability; rather than tying up a Signature slot with a spell you'll likely need in a hurry when you need it, but probabily won't need many of, you can prepare one of them and save your Signature slots for things you may need repeatedly.  For example, I can see using it to prepare a single countermagical effect if you don't expect to run into an enemy spellcaster, but want to have at least one ready if you get suprised.





I hadn't thought of that,  I was trying to think of why you would memorize something that you already knew how to cast. thanks.


----------



## anondragon (May 9, 2005)

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> As the inventor of this rule, I can say, that it is meant as a general rule, not as an additional feat. Although it does invalidate a bit the special abilities of both classes, the "MP limit = HD"-rule is primarily responsible to eliminate the weakness of multiclassed casters, which have levels in non-caster classes (or casters in classes, who give a reduced amount of caster levels compared to the Mage). This means, that a few rules have to be rewritten, but this a small price compared to the effectiveness and elegance of this rule.





So why is there an inherent unfair weakness due to multiclassing?


One of the things that EOM tried to fix(and I believe did) was the penalty of multiclassing among spellcasting classes.  The argument was that a fighter could multiclass as a ranger and not see a penalty to their BAB.  The concept of a caster level to serve as the BAB fixed this.

But the perceived unfairness with multiclassing between casting classes and non-casting classes seems a little far fetched. The multiclass caster could not cast spells with very high damage/DCs. That argument is akin to suggesting that someone that takes 5 levels of rouge, then 10 level of fighter should have max ranks in rouge skills. 

The fighter/rouge example, has a fewer hitpoints than other fighters, lower BAB, but gains sneak attack, evasion and more skill points than any straight-up fighter would.  Comparing their effectiveness solely to one class or the other is a mistake. A straight up rouge will out rouge you, a straight up fighter will dice you up. 

That comparison is not entirely fair as someone pointed out there is still an MP pool limit that would severely limit the number of spells that could be cast each day.   But encounters are very rare which require more than 3 rounds to finish (they do happen but not often). The ability to cast 3 spells at high level coupled with the abilities that were gained from taking taking levels in the other classes make this rule change unbalancing.  Would you allow the rogue to make 3 skill checks a day at HD levels to avoid the "unfairness" that they took 10 levels of fighter? 


So your mage 5/ fighter 10 can't fry enemies with a fireball, due to low max damage and low save DCs...so what.  The levels of mage can offer many advantages over a straight fighter, but to be effective the character needs to be played as a multiclass character.  Focus on buffing spells and environment effecting spells and your character will be seeing the end of the fight more often than the straight up fighter or mage.


As a general rule, the HD limit would ruin much of the existing flavor of the spell casting classes. magekights would be able to stand toe to toe with spell casting against mages (+1 per 5 level does help a little) but with the benefit of higher hit points, better saves(?) and the added bonus of more feats (at lower levels) training with armor and weapons.  As a feat/boon that applies to a limited number of spell lists this rule would allow the classes to keep their flavor without punishing single class casters. 

P.S. did I get rid of the hard breaks?  I prewrite everything in emacs to get the spelling right.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 9, 2005)

The original reasoning behind the rule was to make multiclassing into a spellcaster at high level at least somewhat attractive.  Now, a Mage 5/Fighter 10 has some options that are useful, but a Mage 1/Fighter 14 really has nothing he can do with magic that's worth the round it takes to cast a spell.

In the core rules, the Eldritch Knight class is the only way to make wizard/fighter multiclassing worthwhile, because having only a few levels of spellcasting at high level is nearly worthless.  If you're a Mage 5/Fighter 10, and your attack bonus is +12, why would you spend a round casting a fireball?  You'd do more damage in melee.  True, buffing can have an effect, but like you said, how often do fights go more than a few rounds?  Buffing is a risky proposition.

With the MP Limit = HD rule, if you multiclass or have racial levels, you'll still have a lower total number of MP, and you'll know fewer spell lists.  Also, for the few times it comes up, your caster level will be low.  But you'll be able to do a few interesting things with your magic, regardless of level.  It makes the game more fun, and is not unbalancing, in my opinion.


----------



## Verequus (May 9, 2005)

RW, couldn't you have waited with your post, until I finished mine? 



			
				anondragon said:
			
		

> So why is there an inherent unfair weakness due to multiclassing?
> 
> One of the things that EOM tried to fix(and I believe did) was the penalty of multiclassing among spellcasting classes. The argument was that a fighter could multiclass as a ranger and not see a penalty to their BAB. The concept of a caster level to serve as the BAB fixed this.




This is insofar correct, that classes with a full casting progression can be now combined without getting inadvertently "nerfed". Let us stick for the moment to the core rules and how WotC tried to solve the problem.

The problem consisted of spells, which were to weak because of 3 reasons.



The spell level was too low compared to a singleclassed caster - a Wiz 10/Cle 10 has only access to 5th level spells, while a Wiz 20 or a Cle 20 could even have theoritically access to 10th level spells (after the formula _roundup(Caster level/2) = max spell level_).
Due to the lower spell levels the save DC is lower, which means that only weaker foes will be affected - the BBEG will most of the time laugh, also because of the 3rd reason.
Due to the lower caster level the damage output is lower - compared to a pure caster roughly the half.
The counter argument, that a Wiz/Cle has far more spells available as a pure caster, doesn't hold really water. Firstly, most of the spells won't affect the outcome of a battle much, and secondly, the multiclassed char can still only cast 1 spell per round (Quicken Spell is simply a waste).

So this situation leads to the use of no-save spells (which don't exist in EoMR) and of utility spells. That's simply a waste of a character. Furthermore, all points are valid for multiclassed character with a non-caster classes, except the counter argument.

WotC's first "solution" was the Mystic Theurge prototype. Adding every level two caster levels in exchange for every other class feature. The only thing, Mystic Theurges and their companions can do well, is casting spells - and that after at least the 11th character level in a pure build.

The second "solution" is the Practiced Spellcaster feat - after this feat I modeled the rule. Practiced Spellcaster has the first disadvantage, that at low levels the effect is gigantic. A 1st-level caster can improve his spell effects by a factor five. The second disadvantage, that this feat doesn't stack. The third disadvantage is, that one has to spend a precious feat slot to suck less. It is my deepest believe, that rules shouldn't be designed, that certain combinations have automatically a high penalty, and that the fix is a redesign of the messed up rules, not a faulty workaround.


 The transition of Practiced Spellcaster is a little bit difficult, because spells aren't affected by the caster level. To improve the effect the MP limit has to be heightened itself, and setting it equal to the HD seemed 100% logical.





> But the perceived unfairness with multiclassing between casting classes and non-casting classes seems a little far fetched. The multiclass caster could not cast spells with very high damage/DCs. That argument is akin to suggesting that someone that takes 5 levels of rouge, then 10 level of fighter should have max ranks in rouge skills.
> 
> The fighter/rouge example, has a fewer hitpoints than other fighters, lower BAB, but gains sneak attack, evasion and more skill points than any straight-up fighter would. Comparing their effectiveness solely to one class or the other is a mistake. A straight up rouge will out rouge you, a straight up fighter will dice you up.
> 
> ...






 As RW pointed out, falling behind in spell levels decreases the efficiency of spellcasting dramatically. A Fighter/Rouge build is a Wiz 10/Cle 10 clearly superior. Also you didn't consider, that a low MP pool will affect a caster strongly, next to the lower amount of spell lists. Even a pure caster build can't afford to cast always the strongest spells. How serious is the situation to someone, whose HD are doubled to his caster level, considering the increment of the MP pool over the course of the career of a pure caster? He can cast in one or two fights, exhausting himself entirely from MP. At least this is more fun than saving those MP for healing after the battle. And for the flavor of the pure casters: They have more perks than you give them credit for.





> P.S. did I get rid of the hard breaks?  I prewrite everything in emacs to get the spelling right.





Yes, but you can control it yourself, if you use the preview function. In suspicious cases, you can resize your browser.


----------



## anondragon (May 9, 2005)

I agree that the rule would not break the game but it does seem to favor multicasting more than staying put with a class.  More importantly it changes the flavor of the game for the classes with less than a full spellcasting progression.  You provided the example of the Mage 1 /fighter 14.  But reverse that.  What about a mage 14/ fighter 1?  Why would a mage ever pick up the sword to attack?  Any single spell is worth more than the damage the sword can do.  Extra HP has a minimal minimal effect.  The best reason would be for the armor...but that requires a feat to utilize fully with the spellcasting.  Why not the same in the reverse situation?

In any event, I'm eager to see what alterations are needed to the other classes/feats/traditions to incorporate this rule.  Maybe it will not change the flavor as extensively as I'm fearing.


----------



## Thomas5251212 (May 9, 2005)

anondragon said:
			
		

> I agree that the rule would not break the game but it does seem to favor multicasting more than staying put with a class. More importantly it changes the flavor of the game for the classes with less than a full spellcasting progression. You provided the example of the Mage 1 /fighter 14. But reverse that. What about a mage 14/ fighter 1? Why would a mage ever pick up the sword to attack? Any single spell is worth more than the damage the sword can do. Extra HP has a minimal minimal effect. The best reason would be for the armor...but that requires a feat to utilize fully with the spellcasting. Why not the same in the reverse situation?
> 
> In any event, I'm eager to see what alterations are needed to the other classes/feats/traditions to incorporate this rule. Maybe it will not change the flavor as extensively as I'm fearing.




While I have some reservations about this rule (it might encourage dipping into spellcasting more than I think is desireable) I have to note that the Mage 1/Fighter 14 is still not much more attractive than the Fighter 1/Mage 14; he may potentially be able to cast higher level spells but in practice, that means he might be able to get one off that useful a day.   That's just not a big deal for the class.  In the case of the inverse, while the situation isn't common, the Fighter 1/Mage 14 has the advantage that after he's exausted his mana points, he has something useful to do not dependent on wands and the like; he's perfectly capable of functioning as an about 8th level fighter.  That's not great, but it's probably as useful as the mage capability on the inverse character.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 9, 2005)

It's more of an issue when you get to around 4 levels in a multiclass.  That's when you have enough MP to pull off high-MP effects if you're a Mage 4/Fighter 11, or when you're able to actually get some useful damage if you're a Mage 11/Fighter 4.  One level in a class is seldom useful (though in the core rules, sorcerer/fighters love True Strike, especially for archers).


----------



## Verequus (May 9, 2005)

Just elaborating on RW post: The Fighter 14/Mage 1 has only 5 MP, so without the feat Extra MP (which becomes even more worthwhile as it is now based on HD) the char can't do much with them.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (May 10, 2005)

Just wanted to say that EoM[R] multi-caster-class-chars work _great_. A PC in my siblings campaign has three different casting classes (mageknight/mage/taskmage), and is going to take another next level (longwalker), and then a casting PrC (mage-priest, from AU/E)


----------



## Verequus (May 10, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Just wanted to say that EoM[R] multi-caster-class-chars work _great_. A PC in my siblings campaign has three different casting classes (mageknight/mage/taskmage), and is going to take another next level (longwalker), and then a casting PrC (mage-priest, from AU/E)




Do I remember correctly, that you use even the rule "MP limit = HD + LA"?


----------



## astriemer (May 25, 2005)

RW, you had indicated that someone might be able to get a slight discount on the MP cost of a signature spell or magic item when it had limitations on it. For example, a Charm Humanoid spell that only affects elves.

Perhaps that would be another reason to become an arcanist? The spells in books are, by definition, signature spells so then they would be able to be cast with a slight discount.

For example, what if a signature spell got a -1 MP cost reduction if the spell is significantly limited. Then an Arcanist casting a spell out of a spell book would also get that cost reduction.

Just a thought.


----------

