Here is how I read it (based on the context)

This class should not ALWAYS be better than fighter with weapons. It should be as good sometimes.

Fighter should be the best guy with the swords/ bows bar none. He is now and he should remain so. Magus should be good, maybe better with buffs but overall not as good since he has the option to do other b+%~@in' stuff with spells.

Maybe that's not what he meant to say but based on the context that's how I see it.

As ToZ says it's impossible to really say one way or the other without seeing what the spell list is but I don't see full BAB and 3/4 casting passing muster unless the spell list is truly horrible.

It might not be a very good spell caster, but might be a good melee type.

JRR wrote:

Ardenup wrote:

Why, oh why does it need full bab?

why oh why does it need full BAB?

The same reason the ranger, paladin, and barbarian do. They are warrior classes first and foremost, so should the magus be.

Points out those casters in that group have half casting and uses non arcane spells Your comparing apples to oranges here

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

If it gains spells at level 1 with full BAB yes when the two other full BAB casting classes do not,Then yes it's broken.

Can you prove that?

AlQahir wrote:

Me'mori wrote:

*grin* just imagine the ideas we're giving the staff. =3

That they have decided to never make this class?

They probably needed to make two classes, one with 3/4 BAB, one with full BAB. Or a magus class with 3/4 BAB and an arcane ranger archetype that gets cantrips at 1st level but that otherwise uses the normal ranger spell progression.

Just so you know there is going to be a Battle Bard variant coming next month on the APH. So we will have a 3/4 BAB combat caster class.

That leaves the full BAB caster class to be made.

Why can't a class get full base attack, D10 hit dice, and 1st level spells at level 1? What if the 1st level spells is weaker than a paladin smite, but have their own melee combat oriented niche?

AlQahir wrote:

Ardenup wrote:

This class should not ALWAYS be better than fighter. It should be as good sometimes.

I disagree. This class should always be as good as a fighter. Just as a Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian are always as good as a fighter. They all have different abilities and different methods of doing things, but as far as I am concerned they are all equal. The magus should introduce yet another method of being formidable in a melee, but be just as viable as the fighter. After all the fighter is not threatened by the ranger, barbarian, and paladin so adding yet another option should not make the fighter superfluous. The class should not be better than a fighter, nor as good as a fighter and as a wizard.

Wow, spectacular job pulling a quote from it's context and dissecting it out of context. The question is did you deliberately ignore the point being made or did you just read the post differently than I did?

Must have read the post differently than you. I did not feel the "weapons" was implied. I interpreted it as this class is not meant to be a toe-to-toe fighter all the time. More along the lines of the rogue and monk (possibly the new APG d8 classes though I've never play tested any of them). If it is as you imply then I would agree. The magus should not have weapons specializations, the critical abilities, etc. My point was that when it comes to cumulative melee power and and durability the classes should be equal. By melee power and durability I mean the ability to deal and sustain damage. I know the magus will accomplish this through arcane means (blink tank anyone), but at the end of the day the results are the same. I see the magus and fighter as interchangeable. Both accomplishing the same task(s), just through different methods.

I feel I must point out that all I have heard about the Magus has said 'weapon-wielding arcanist.' It never states that they're necessarily going to be good at it.

As this seems to be turning into an argument for the sake of arguing, I'll simply say that I would like a class that's similar to the 2e Bladesinger, a class that blends swordplay and magic seamlessly and isn't one or the other, like almost every other class that I've seen. This (to me) means that it cannot have full BA or spellcasting. And if what I see from the playtests isn't what I'm looking for...well, I'm going to see if I can't manage something myself. But I personally have faith that the Paizo staff will do a good job with the Magus.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

JRR wrote:

Ardenup wrote:

Why, oh why does it need full bab?

why oh why does it need full BAB?

The same reason the ranger, paladin, and barbarian do. They are warrior classes first and foremost, so should the magus be.

Points out those casters in that group have half casting and uses non arcane spells Your comparing apples to oranges here

They also have rage, animal companions, smite evil, divine grace, favored enemy, combat paths, etc.

An In the example I listed the possible magus had a spell channel ability which added to hit AND damage. Like Smite or Rage- you conviently ignored that part.

With a free action, rounds per day or and x/day ability that buffs you up to melee standard you can melee VERY well. You just can't do it ALL day. What's wrong with that if you've got up to 6th level casting? Having full bab all the time breaks the class.

I, sir, challenge you to playtest (or at least thoroughly examine)the following class:

A 3/4 magus class that can melee

It's only 3/4 BAB and 3/4 casting but we've been using it for awhile and it rocks hard! (But not all day so fighter's don't seem weak by comparision)

Cheers.

Ardenup wrote:

This class should not ALWAYS be better than fighter. It should be as good sometimes.

I disagree. This class should always be as good as a fighter. Just as a Paladin, Ranger and Barbarian are always as good as a fighter. They all have different abilities and different methods of doing things, but as far as I am concerned they are all equal. The magus should introduce yet another method of being formidable in a melee, but be just as viable as the fighter. After all the fighter is not threatened by the ranger, barbarian, and paladin so adding yet another option should not make the fighter superfluous. The class should not be better than a fighter, nor as good as a fighter and as a wizard.

OH NO he said the bar-bar-barian is as good as the fighter FLAME WAR IMMINENT HEAD FOR THE HILLS *throws computer on floor and jumps through window*

@Cydeth: that is a good view point, it might end up sort of like the swordsage, that had 3/4th BAB I wouldn't say it was underpowered at all!

I'd like to see a Full BAB, 1d10 HD, Good Will, 6 level caster, but with more spells per day than the bard.

I would like to see it NOT use weapons, but rely on spells for melee and ranged combat. Kind of a Spell-using Monk, but instead of unarmed strikes, they use spells or summoned weapons/effects (I'm kind of picturing a light-saber-like staff or glaive with reach, but no handle).

You're in the wrong thread then. The Magus is being created soley because of the demand for spellcasting weaponslinging gish types.

What you're looking for is the "gith" (for Githzerai) thread. :)

An interesting concept is that the 'Magus' could gain proficiency with a One-Handed or Light weapon and treat it as their 'casting focus' or athame (Spelling?) for class abilities, treating all attacks with that weapon as having a full BAB. Otherwise they have a BAB the same as a Wizard, giving the Class an obvious achilies heel for canny DM's to target.

Much like an Item Familiar, the Athame gains abilities beyond most weapons and, beyond level 12, perhaps even sentience and even greater powers, potentially giving the Magus a near-artifact-level weapon well before other classes, but only in their hands.

Combining this with the 'Spell Point' system and the ability to drain charges out of magical items or temporarily 'shut down' non-charged items to refill the Spell Point pool, the Magus can expend Spell-Points to temporarily grant abilities such as Metamagic to their spells spontaneously or grant themselves supernatural abilities, or at higher levels, grant their Athame abilities normally reserved for artifacts for a very short duration, and at no little cost to both Magus and Athame.

Alternatively, the Magus could simply cast their spells as Spell-Like Abilities and/or Supernatural Abilities, having a very low spell-selection like the 3.5 Warlock but with the ability to learn X-amount of Y-level spells every level, enabling the Magus to have some variety and be a team-player.

Where the Warlock failed is that his abilities tied in mostly to his own empowerment (as befitted the Class's flavour), but a Magus is more like the third 'branch' of the Arcane School, with the Wizard (Learned Spells) as the First branch, Sorcerers and Bards (Innate Spells) as the Second and the Magus (Spell-like Abilities) as the Third, a limited but potentially unrivaled school of spell-casting that shuns the limitations of the other styles in favour of tapping directly into the underlying flow of magic inherent in all levels of reality.

I, sir, challenge you to playtest (or at least thoroughly examine)the following class:

A 3/4 magus class that can melee

It's only 3/4 BAB and 3/4 casting but we've been using it for awhile and it rocks hard! (But not all day so fighter's don't seem weak by comparision)

Cheers.

I can't access from work. Is this the legionary or some other class?

I'm rather dissapointed in those saying that giving the magus a reason to leave and go EK is a bad idea. If a player is willing to dip into EK and deny themselves a capstone class ability and a caster level for the sake of an extra attack? More power to them.

I'm also very interested to see the meshing of the Magus and the Arcane archer. I really do like the Bard -> arcane archer builds and I think the magus could easily accomplish this type of build more effectively.

Giving the Magus 3/4 BAB makes mechanical sense. You now have a reason to class into the EK and specialize in beating things with sharp objects, or into the Arcane archer and specialize in shooting them with sharp objects. If you gave it full BAB you would completely marginalize the eldritch knight as a customization option for the class. Giving it full spellcasting progression effectively trades school specialization for 3/4 BAB and class features. I would make that trade in a heartbeat.

Narrowing the spell list too far pigeonholes the class into a single character concept. Its spell list should complement but otherwise angle away from the bard. If a bard is good at it a magus should avoid it, and vice versa. (Exceptions of course for primary utility spells such as detect magic, mage armor, and the like)

So what I want to see:

What I do see as a problem with 3/4 BAB is less in the numbers and more in the feat progression options. You're going to get stuck waiting until level 6 for great cleave and spring attack, and level 8 for greater combat maneuvers, lunge, improved two weapon, etc. Possibly level 7 or 9, respectively, if the class doesn't recieve ranger/monk/etc bonus feat progression. (Which I firmly believe it will need to work as a flexible class.)

I want to see levels in magus count as and stack with fighter levels for the purpose of qualifying for feats. I want to see the major combat trees appear on a 2,6,10,14,18 bonus feat progression, and allow them to ignore prerequisites for those bonus feats. An archery progression, a two weapon fighting progression, Weapon master progression (power attack into weapon specializations and the like), spellcasting progression, etc.

I want to see a feature similar to fighter weapon training that gives an overall +5 to attacks and damage but is unlinked to the type of weapon you're using. Let it stack with arcane strike. If you want to get really fancy, make it like a paladin's divine bond. Start it at 5th. This ensures it always falls on a level which is not a spell level, but doesn't give the magus the ability to break magic DR early on which would trivialize many low level encounters. It also hard caps the ridiculousness from this and magic weapons at +5 to attack with some crazy arcane effects to assist. Alternatively give them access to a familiar which expands their spells known in the same manner as the witch from the APG playtest along with a +3 to a relevant combat skill like acrobatics, sleight of hand, bluff, and such. Call it Bond of the Magi or something. Don't let a familiar flank. Keep them to reach 0ft.

On Defense, I want one of the following options:

1) Arcane Armor training, giving the Magus the ability to move about and cast freely in medium armor at level 6 and heavy at level 12 (just before their 3rd and 5th spell levels). I am wary of giving them full dex in their armor, as that's a fighter's special awesomeness. Full casting seems perfectly appropriate. Not to mention that as a MAD class straining their ability scores to encompass dexterity as well might not end well on all fronts. Most dexterity issues can be solved with mithril armor just like we used to do in 3.5 anyway.

2) Make them an unarmored class and give them an AC bonus based on their casting stat.

Personally, I think #1 is the best option. The monk-style insight bonus would be neat but lead to all the problems inherent with monk AC. Not to mention it steps on the duelist's toes.

At level 1 I want the ability to channel touch attacks through a melee weapon instead. Put shocking grasp on my spell list. It'll be my 'smite' attack.

At level 5 I want to be able to hold the charge on a ranged touch attack if I miss.

At level 10 I want to see the ability to lower your BAB by 5 for a round to cast a standard action casting time spell as part of a full attack action provoking no attacks of opportunity. Specifically lowering your BAB by 5 to prevent people getting around negating the penalty with haste effects.

At level 15 I want to see the ability to cast spells with a range of personal as a swift action.

At level 20 I want the ability to link spells to critical hits in some manner, similar to the EK. I think that capstone is particularly elegant for an offensive caster in melee.

Should the class get ALL of these? probably not. But hey, at least I'm not worried about a d10 hit die. Seriously, take the toughness feat or ask for it as a bonus feat option. Same difference.

If the Magus is a +3/4 BAB class and Full Caster, maybe they can give them an ability where they can use their Caster Level in place of their BAB when qualifying for feats and the like. Possibly also to CMB and CMD. That should help with "feat lag."

Maybe call it Arcane Might or something.

Mr. Fishy still thinks that the Magus could work as a dual path spell casting or weapon training focus. Two magi could be a melee spell channel and the other could be a second row artillary backup fighter. If the class is as good as a fighter then why play a fighter. If he caster better than a wizard then why be a wizard. The class needs to balance power with versatility. Too far one way or the other and the class will topple into the same hole as the summoner. Better to aim low and add features than the aim high an have to cut them. It's a lot easier to add.

Magus chooses magic get a list of bonus spells like a sorceror's bloodline spells, and school specialization abilities(energy resistance/bonus damage to attack spells/SLA)

Magus chooses combat get a magical weapon/armor [bonded item] or a magically created energy weapon and Arcane Armor as a bonus feat at first level.

BA 3/4, Bard spells known/day from S/W list.

Kick it around.

I don't see why the d10 is such a big hang up for people though. Picking up Toughness as a feat or maybe even including it as a bonus feat doesn't seem so bad. Maybe I'm missing something.

I agree, I don't know why the PF folks decided to make BA so tied to HD, that any deviation from it is impossible. I think a full BA but d8 HD, would have been a nice compromise, but sadly that is not an option.

This board is way too prone to eating posts...
Intrigued by the discussion I decided to whip up my own ideal version of the magus. I used neither full BAB, nor full spell progression, instead adding a bunch of my favorite part of classes: unique class features! I think it turned out pretty well, but I would love to hear about how it is overpowered/underpowered and would never work. ;) Please note I did not spend long on the spell list because I need to go to bed, just listed some spells at each level to showcase the general theme I thought would be most fitting. And of course if anyone should, by some strange miracle, actually like what I have done here and have suggestions on how to add to it like new ideas for arcana, I would be happy to hear them!

JRR wrote:

An In the example I listed the possible magus had a spell channel ability which added to hit AND damage. Like Smite or Rage- you conviently ignored that part.

With a free action, rounds per day or and x/day ability that buffs you up to melee standard you can melee VERY well. You just can't do it ALL day. What's wrong with that if you've got up to 6th level casting? Having full bab all the time breaks the class.

I, sir, challenge you to playtest (or at least thoroughly examine)the following class:

A 3/4 magus class that can melee

It's only 3/4 BAB and 3/4 casting but we've been using it for awhile and it rocks hard! (But not all day so fighter's don't seem weak by comparision)

Cheers.

I'll one up you. I have already playtested this class: A full bab class that can cast spells.

Full bab, d1o hd, a few special abilities. It has a few problems, the spells known mechanic is clunky, and the riven spell abilities are almost useless after level 5 or so, but it's a really fun class to play. I have one in my game, the player enjoys the hell out of it, but honestly, both the paladin and the ranger do way more damage in combat. If it had a 3/4 bab, he wouldn't even be close.

I'll one up you. I have already playtested this class: Link.

Full bab, d1o hd, a few special abilities. It has a few problems, the spells known mechanic is clunky, and the riven spell abilities are almost useless after level 5 or so, but it's a really fun class to play. I have one in my game, the player enjoys the hell out of it, but honestly, both the paladin and the ranger do way more damage in combat. If it had a 3/4 bab, he wouldn't even be close.

That should fix the link.

That leaves the full BAB caster class to be made.

Why can't a class get full base attack, D10 hit dice, and 1st level spells at level 1? What if the 1st level spells is weaker than a paladin smite, but have their own melee combat oriented niche?

Because there isn't anything like this in the game yet?

That doesn't mean it won't happen but it seems unlikely. It also seems very unlikely to please many people interested in the class. JRR is talking about tossing chain lightning around and you don't get there with a wimpy spell list.

JRR is talking about tossing chain lightning around and you don't get there with a wimpy spell list.

Just UMD. :)

Must have read the post differently than you. I did not feel the "weapons" was implied. I interpreted it as this class is not meant to be a toe-to-toe fighter all the time. More along the lines of the rogue and monk (possibly the new APG d8 classes though I've never play tested any of them). If it is as you imply then I would agree. The magus should not have weapons specializations, the critical abilities, etc. My point was that when it comes to cumulative melee power and and durability the classes should be equal. By melee power and durability I mean the ability to deal and sustain damage. I know the magus will accomplish this through arcane means (blink tank anyone), but at the end of the day the results are the same. I see the magus and fighter as interchangeable. Both accomplishing the same task(s), just through different methods.

The bolded bit is where I disagree. If you are going to be able to cast fireball and chain lightning you have to give up something. Maybe you don't intend for the class to be doing this but several people have suggested exactly this and everything I've heard implies the class has more or less the wizard spell list.

Suggesting that weapon specialization and critical feats is equivalent to 3/4 spell casting doesn't pas the reasonableness test.

That should fix the link.

Thanks, I edited my post to fix it.

Suggesting that weapon specialization and critical feats is equivalent to 3/4 spell casting doesn't pas the reasonableness test.

Sure it does. Compare a magus with full bab and 3/4 casting to a paladin.

He has better spells, that's it. The paladin has all sorts of abilities, some of the most poerful in the game. The magus would have 2 extra spell levels, a few more per day and get them earlier. I can't fathom how 20/40 extra damage on 75% of the enemies in the game, channel energy, lay on hands, the ability to cure every condition possible, holy sword, immunity to damn near every status effect is less powerful than 2 extra spell levels.

I love just about everything Paizo has done to the game with the sole, major exception of a lot of the staunch adherence to "unwritten" standardization. The beauty of 3.5 was always its flexibility (whereas 4th edition is all about standardization... neither is wrong, but they're for different types of players), and refusing to be flexible with certain aspects of the game to the point where they actually have to cheat their own rules to accomplish certain things seems to get Paizo into trouble with their players more often than it needs to. I mean, look at the oracle. One of the complaints about the oracle early on was that it didn't have enough spells known. How did they fix it? Well, they gave it bonus cure spells in addition to its bonus spells from its mystery, effectively significantly increasing its spells known without actually modifying the chart. That's saying "our rules don't work" and responding with "how do we cheat them?" rather than "how can we fix them?" I applaud their recognition of the issue and their willingness to do something about it, but it still bums me out a little that they're so hung up on imaginary restrictions for themselves.

The same is true of the marriage between BAB and HD, and of inflexibility beyond the four different spell progressions in general. Those systems are great most of the time, but when clear cases begin to arise that force cheating of the system, the system should probably just change. And in the case of spell progressions, it wouldn't even be hard to change it because there's no written rule preventing them from making new progressions. It's just a restriction they've set for themselves. I love you anyway, Paizo!

That said, I have a few different thought experiments here:

1) Would a class with wizard casting, wizard spell list, d10 hit dice, and full base attack bonus, with no class abilities, no ability to cast without spell failure, and only simple weapon and light armour proficiencies be overpowered? Would it even be preferable over a wizard? I honestly really doubt it, and wizards barely even get class features. I'm not saying this because I believe we need a full BAB/full casting character. I'm saying this because it seems like a lot of people are ignoring class features entirely, and it's pretty impossible to gauge power level in a vacuum. Classes get class features. If you gave me a 1st-level magus (with full BAB and casting from level 1) and then gave me a paladin or ranger at 1st-level, only you had stripped them of all their class features, I'd say "sure, these two classes are out of balance with one another," but to say without knowing a single class feature that the mere existence of 1st-level casting alongside a +1 BAB is overpowered is beyond ludicrous.

2) If the cleric got full BAB and the ability to wear heavy armour, but divine spells had spell failure chance, would it be a good trade-off? I understand that most combat casting classes get some form of reduced spell failure chance, but the truth of the matter is that the more powerful (or really, offensive) nature of arcane spellcasting comes with its own baggage as a limiting factor. An arcane caster whose game plan is to wade into combat and start provoking attacks of opportunity has to accept either that 1) sometimes his spells just fail to work; 2) he's going to get hit a lot; or 3) he might be able to get hit less often and have spells work more often at the expense of a crap-ton of feats and the loss of his ability to use swift actions during casting rounds. This limiting factor is being entirely overlooked in this thread.

3) What do you call a class with full BAB and three-quarter spellcasting? The summoner. Just kidding! (kind of...) I realize the eidolon never gets past 15HD, but at low levels it has full BAB and already comes with its own built-in iterative attacks if you want it to, not to mention the summoner has spells, and honestly likely a lot of the same spells the magus would probably have access to.

4) What do you call a class with full BAB, full casting, and no spell failure chance? The druid (with Natural Spell). And this time I'm not kidding! Let's be fair here. The druid is proof positive that you can hand-pick a spell list that is fair and balanced when combined with a combat frame, and the druid gets all the way up to 9th-level spells, which nobody so far has actually asked for!

And with regard to those asking why BAB and why not just some sort of compensating factor, let me refer you to my above rant about cheating rules. If the class needs the boost, why not just give it the boost? Why pretend you're not and then cheat it into the build anyway. And let's be fair, all of the other full BAB classes are already cheating additional bonuses: fighter gets feats, ranger gets favoured stuff, paladin gets smite, and barbarian gets rage. The type of magus that will actually appeal to the fans who have been demanding such a class (and as the author of "Dear Paizo, please give us a gish base class," I should know) is the type that is a fighter foremost, but who cheats in his extra damage and attack bonus using magical means rather than by being an expert tactician, being extra good at fighting certain people in certain places, being a beacon of good and smiting heretics, or being able to get really angry and freak out.

The concern that the fighter will lose its niche is inane. Nobody who wants to play a combat tactician will settle for somebody who fights with magic instead of tactics, for the same reason that nobody who wants to play an angry dude who freaks out and beats people up will settle for a combat tactician. There's more to the fighter's niche than his base attack bonus, and I think the existence of four other classes with that BAB has more than proven that. Does everyone in this thread play exclusively with optimizers, or something? Does nobody you know factor roleplaying into their character designs at all? As someone coming to the magus foremost for roleplaying reasons, I'd be pretty insulted to find that my arcane warrior is more like a little tougher, little dumber wizard. That's a lazy design that will confuse the point of such a class. Slightly tougher, slightly dumber wizards are called bards. If the magus is to fill the role of the arcane warrior that so many people have requested, it needs to be a WARRIOR.

Careful class features and careful spell list selection can make this a reality, and I think it shows a complete lack of faith in Paizo's design team to tell them, in a vacuum, that such a build is impossible. Hell, if I were them, I'd change my plans almost as though a challenge had been issued. People in this thread have essentially challenged Paizo to make a balanced full BAB class that can cast from 1st-level onward. Paizo, you can do it!

You guys should be looking at the Bard, inquisitor and the alchemist. All are 3/4th BAB, have some armor ,pretty good at fighting, good buffs and spell list. The Magus will not just have spells and BAB, but also have ablitys that allow him to do what he is meant to do.

The class is suppose to be a mix, not a fighter but a blend it's not al about fighting, but how it fights. It's supposed to be a class that fights with magic, not a class that has a little bit of magic like a ranger and paladin.

What some of you are wanting is not what the class is intended to do, your wanting an arcane paladin with more spells which was never the listed intent of the Magus.

My point being, seeker, is that Full BAB is not what makes a Fighter a fighter. Otherwise we'd be using the Warrior class.

My point being, seeker, is that Full BAB is not what makes a Fighter a fighter. Otherwise we'd be using the Warrior class.

No, and if the magic is weak it may not be an issue. Full BAB is not just a +1 or a +5 but also about when you gain some feats, when and how many attacks you gain. This stuff is not stand alone and when you combine it with a class that has arcane spells it becomes a real issue, unless the spell list is near unless or a half caster or less with near useless spells.

People really need to step back and look at all angles and they are not. Full BAB and 3/4th casting opens upp all kinds of issues and abuse and then how does x ablity work with feats that were never designed to work with x ablity?

You can't just slap full BAB up there and go "Done" that is sloppy. 3/4th BAB I find is best because it's a fine middle group, it gives you room to work like the classes I listed above do. You can make a class that gives you the feel and does what ya want and like those can take center stage at times, without always being the best. You should be able to match those lasses when buffed and at full but not 24/7 as that is the non-magical classes role to fill.

The bolded bit is where I disagree. If you are going to be able to cast fireball and chain lightning you have to give up something. Maybe you don't intend for the class to be doing this but several people have suggested exactly this and everything I've heard implies the class has more or less the wizard spell list.

Suggesting that weapon specialization and critical feats is equivalent to 3/4 spell casting doesn't pas the reasonableness test.

You're right that people have tossed chain lightning and fireball out as suggested spells, but I think those people aren't the same people whose requests made the future existence of this class a reality, because those aren't at all the type of spells the core requesters have been asking for. And as much as I would love to have access to the wizard list just from a perspective of practicality (since that makes the class infinitely more backwards compatible), I don't think it would be right for ANY build of the class. Wizards have way different priorities than arcane warriors do. The magus should absolutely be matching (but not bettering) the damage output of the fighter, barbarian, ranger, or paladin, but he shouldn't be doing that in addition to using magic, he should be doing it BY using magic (to supplement his attacks).

This is the vision that has received all of the vocal support (nagging) that Paizo seems to be responding to.

Also, dudes, let's be fair: it may not be Paizo content, but we do have a legitimate example of a full BAB, partial caster who casts from level 1, and isn't overpowered, in the duskblade. I know there are people out there who feel the duskblade is overpowered, but everytime I ask them if they've actually played one or GMed for one, they go silent. I have played duskblades, and I've played a lot of them. It's my favourite class of all time. And what can I tell you? Well, right now, I'm in a Pathfinder game that uses updated 3.5 material. I play a duskblade, and my companions include an oracle, a druid, a crusader, a shadowcaster, and a homebrew class, and the only reason my duskblade is competitive in the group is that my GM expanded his spell list, and allowed me to use knowstones to get more spells known. That's right: otherwise underpowered compared to a druid, an oracle, a crusader, and a shadowcaster (is that what they're called? I mean the class from Tome of Magic).

Also, dudes, let's be fair: it may not be Paizo content, but we do have a legitimate example of a full BAB, partial caster who casts from level 1, and isn't overpowered, in the duskblade.

Good point.

I thought I would start a thread where people can post things the would and would not like to see in the new Magus class. It seems there is a new fighter-mage (Magus) thread every other week, but this time it is more of a wish list of abilities that we would like the Magus to have. Since the developers want Magus to supplant "Gish" as the word that means fighter-mage, and since many never liked the word gish to begin with, AND since we all want to earn extra credit from the developers so they'll listen to our ideas, lets make this a 'gish-free thread :)

Things I'd like to see in the new Magus class:

1- An ability to deliver spells through a weapon.
2- Flexible armor penalty reduction to support multiple build concepts. Meaning not just "can cast spells in X armor . . ." but "reduces the spell failure of armor by X% . . ." This supports those that want to wear all types of armor.
3- Bonus to casting spells in melee.
4- D10 hit die.
5- A broad or multiple spell list(s) to facilitate different builds or concepts.
6- Cool flavor. I would love to see something along the lines of the cavalier orders that would give the magus different abilities, and control which spells they had access to.
7- Magus (or even better, order) specific spells.

Things I DON'T want to see:

1- Paladin/ranger spell progression.
2- Full spell progression.
3- Full BAB
4- Prohibited magic schools.
5- Unrestricted access to all schools like a sorcerer or universalist wizard.

I know some of the things I put on the list seem contradictory (d10 hit dice with 3/4 BAB), and others seem like I was obfuscating (not wizard/sorcerer spell progression and not ranger/paladin which leaves . . .), but I think that this class may be an opportunity to break the mold. I don't think the magus must have a bard equivalent spell progression, but that a brand new magus spell progression might be the way to go.

Likewise I wouldn't mind seeing a different casting mechanic then we have seen before. Depending on flavor text I could...

I want to see an arcane caster whose proficiencies and spell progressions and HD align with the cleric. I want his special abilities to focus on channelling spell power through his weapon and being able to cast spells at the same time as making a single melee attack. Lastly, I want him to have 4+Int Skill Points and UMD needs to be a critical skill for him.

Finally, in terms of flavor, I want him to be more Rune magic and less book magic. I think it is essential that he not be a bookworm and instead be someone who's body fuels the magic. For that reason, I would love it if CON was his primary magic-generating stat and if using his spells drained HP as he goes along.

And I think the name Magus is excellent for the class.

I want the magus to be able to cast spells with a sword in each hand or while wielding a two handed weapon.

D8 hit dice with 3/4 BAB and Bard spell progression with specialized class abilities to meld magic and melee sounds perfect. I think maybe light armor and the swordsage's ac bonus from wisdom (or whatever the caster abilities is) would be fine. You want more attacks, speed weapon ability or the haste spell. Limit spell list to abjuration, divination (everyone has it no one uses it), evocation, maybe necromancy (for evil flavor) and of course transmutation. To me this class should be somewhere between the Duskblade and the Swordsage. A caster who is fast, agile, and able to hit you with a melee weapon briming with arcane pain, then disipering into the dust of battle. I think Wisdom would be a good ability, someone mentioned it earlier (can't remember who, sorry) because the class should act on gut instinct. That sounds, right, we have the brainy mage, the charismatic sorcerer and bard, why not a wise magus. It's about time the arcane had some one to stand upto the monks, druids, and cleircs of the game.
LONG LIVE THE MAGUS!

How about this as a compromise. 3/4 BAB, bard-ish spell progression (with completely different spells of course), some ability to compensate for his diminished BAB like smite or the like, and the ability to use his CL for his BAB for feat prerequisites.

Cele wrote:
I want the magus to be able to cast spells with a sword in each hand or while wielding a two handed weapon.

Amen to that.

How about this as a compromise. 3/4 BAB, bard-ish spell progression (with completely different spells of course), some ability to compensate for his diminished BAB like smite or the like, and the ability to use his CL for his BAB for feat prerequisites. [/QUOTE

Benn Roe had an excellent point above. Why bother "cheating?" Just give him the full bab. I see people screaming full bab is broken, but giving him the equivalent with class ability isn't? +20 bab at 20tth level is functionally no different than +15 with a +5 miscellaneous bonus to attack other than the last iterative attack which rarely hits anyway. Why bother hacking the system over that?

meatrace wrote:

How about this as a compromise. 3/4 BAB, bard-ish spell progression (with completely different spells of course), some ability to compensate for his diminished BAB like smite or the like, and the ability to use his CL for his BAB for feat prerequisites.

Benn Roe had an excellent point above. Why bother "cheating?" Just give him the full bab. I see people screaming full bab is broken, but giving him the equivalent with class ability isn't? +20 bab at 20tth level is functionally no different than +15 with a +5 miscellaneous bonus to attack other than the last iterative attack which rarely hits anyway. Why bother hacking the system over that?

Ben Roe also suggested Chain lightning was inappropriate for this class while you suggested it was exactly the sort of thing you wanted. It's kind of hard to have a discussion when everyone is working from different assumptions.

My idea of a fighter/mage is someone whom fights in melee as well as any other warrior class. I'm not saying he has to out damage the fighter, but he has to be comparable to the other classes, can augment himself with a few spells - blur, bull's strengh, etc, and toss an occasional spell such as fireball, lightning bolt, etc. These spells would replace ranged attacks if desired. I realize other people have different ideas, but I see no reason why several concepts can't be created with the magus class, similar to how the fighter or ranger can be built a number of ways. Archer, melee, mounted combat, etc. This can be done without stepping on the fighter's toes at all.

My idea of a fighter/mage is someone whom fights in melee as well as any other warrior class. I'm not saying he has to out damage the fighter, but he has to be comparable to the other classes, can augment himself with a few spells - blur, bull's strengh, etc, and toss an occasional spell such as fireball, lightning bolt, etc. These spells would replace ranged attacks if desired. I realize other people have different ideas, but I see no reason why several concepts can't be created with the magus class, similar to how the fighter or ranger can be built a number of ways. Archer, melee, mounted combat, etc. This can be done without stepping on the fighter's toes at all.

From what I can tell this isn't what Benn Roe is talking about, he's talking full BAB with a much more limited spell list and spell like or supernatural abilities to supplement combat.

I can get behind a light caster with cool supernatural abilities and full BAB. A full 2/3 caster with an open spell list not so much.

You're right that people have tossed chain lightning and fireball out as suggested spells, but I think those people aren't the same people whose requests made the future existence of this class a reality, because those aren't at all the type of spells the core requesters have been asking for. And as much as I would love to have access to the wizard list just from a perspective of practicality (since that makes the class infinitely more backwards compatible), I don't think it would be right for ANY build of the class. Wizards have way different priorities than arcane warriors do. The magus should absolutely be matching (but not bettering) the damage output of the fighter, barbarian, ranger, or paladin, but he shouldn't be doing that in addition to using magic, he should be doing it BY using magic (to supplement his attacks).

This is the vision that has received all of the vocal support (nagging) that Paizo seems to be responding to.

This would be a cool class. More Jedi than gish though :P

JRR wrote:

From what I can tell this isn't what Benn Roe is talking about, he's talking full BAB with a much more limited spell list and spell like or supernatural abilities to supplement combat.

I can get behind a light caster with cool supernatural abilities and full BAB. A full 2/3 caster with an open spell list not so much.

Right, I'm not suggesting he was. With a more open list, both concepts are viable, though. Limit the spell list and only one is. I'd suggest limiting the spells known, though.

I was in favor of the Magus (wonderful name btw) having Full BAB and 3/4 caster... but then I read some posts here and I changed my mind.
A well buffed cleric, druid or whatever can already be as good as racking people as a fighter, so, if we give full BAB to a buffer it will just be OMG, WTF? SO, 3/4 seems pretty neat. It's one less iterative attack that can be suplemented with neat abilities. And neat abilties is what pathfinder is all about (at least that's what I see it). The Magus/EK argument is what got me, it makes no sense to create a class that makes another one almost nearly useless. It's already a "bad" prestige (and in my opnion, only because of the swift silyness) it makes no sense destroying it completely.

Sadly, I think many of the people who are trashing ideas as "munchkin" or "overpowered" are actually people who have no intention of every playing the class under discussion or allowing it in their games, as GMs.

I'm not trying to revive a previous debate, but this strikes me as the whole spiked chain issue. There was some folks that complained about the 3.5 spiked chain, how it was "overpowered" and "munchkin" [if you compare it to the heavy flail, it wasn't actually, but again I don't want to revive that debate]. What happened? Paizo nerfed the weapon, and now we have a weapon that the people that complained about the previous version still don't use or allow to be used, while those that did use the previous version now don't want to use. Net effect => negative.

I am getting the same vibe in this thread. There are those people that won't be happy with anything but a completely nerfed class, which they will still disallow from entering their game. And this class will be so nerfed that the people that would have allowed it or used it are disgusted by it.

I would ask, if you honestly don't think you will ever support a warrior-mage class, that you politely excuse yourself from the discussion. Don't rain on other people's ideas when you really have no intention of using the class anyway. I know this will fall on deaf ears, but if you really care about your fellow gamers, you should be able to conclude when a topic isn't to your interest and just let the people that are interested continue on.

I am seeing the opposite Pres man, some folks here will never be satisfied to the class is so over the top broken it makes a cleric look weak. When you start with cleric and druid as "benchmarks" for power level you've started off to high to start with.

How about this as a compromise. 3/4 BAB, bard-ish spell progression (with completely different spells of course), some ability to compensate for his diminished BAB like smite or the like, and the ability to use his CL for his BAB for feat prerequisites.

This is where I think they are headed. Look at the Inquisitor and Alchemist. Both can in some way can boost attack ablity. I am thinking you're gonna see a class with magical combat abilities more then you will see something you can already make.

I was in favor of the Magus (wonderful name btw) having Full BAB and 3/4 caster... but then I read some posts here and I changed my mind.

A well buffed cleric, druid or whatever can already be as good as racking people as a fighter, so, if we give full BAB to a buffer it will just be OMG, WTF? SO, 3/4 seems pretty neat. It's one less iterative attack that can be suplemented with neat abilities. And neat abilties is what pathfinder is all about (at least that's what I see it). The Magus/EK argument is what got me, it makes no sense to create a class that makes another one almost nearly useless. It's already a "bad" prestige (and in my opnion, only because of the swift silyness) it makes no sense destroying it completely.

The magus working with the EK poorly is not really that big of an issue. Lots of classes work poorly with the EK. Clerics, druids, barbarians, rogues, etc. And the EK will still be good for those classes that want it, almost full casters who don't mind losing 2 caster levels in order to get their rays and touch attacks up. EK has always been pretty poor of a class for a stand up warrior-mage. It is much better for a mage who wants to focus on some pretty specific attacks.

I am seeing the opposite Pres man, some folks here will never be satisfied to the class is so over the top broken it makes a cleric look weak. When you start with cleric and druid as "benchmarks" for power level you've started off to high to start with.

But shouldn't they be benchmarks anyway? Shouldn't a caster class be as good as they are? Not better, as good as?

I honestly love the route Paizo has taken to building the superfluous classes(i.e 3/4 casting and 3/4 BAB and adding in lots of goodies). And that is what a Fighter/Mage is, while it may be iconic it is superfluous.

It should not have Full BAB and 3/4 casting.

Mostly because the recommendation that if you limit the spell list you can mitigate the power creep. I find this to be a bogus argument because there is a LOT of 3rd party content out there and now you shift the responsibility to the DM to maintain balance, which is not somewhere you want to be because most good DMs, like politicians, WANT to say yes and keep their players happy. (Not to mention the feeling of being railroaded spell-wise, I really dislike confined spell-lists)

Now, those that still want Full BAB and argue staying power... If they have d10 HPs, and can cast False Life(lvl2 spell hours/lvl) They are effectively better than a Barbarian in HP until 11th level, and possibly better depending on their roll until lvl 20. (This spell alone puts a 3/4 BAB Magus on par with a Fighter as far as HPs go)

Now if you add in Heavy Armor (Which I hear a lot advocating for) then you give a Magus the chief benefit the Fighter has in Mundane AC, but the Magus still has Blink, Blur, Mirror Image, etc. etc. Effectively, supplanting the Fighter defensively.

I am seeing the opposite Pres man, some folks here will never be satisfied to the class is so over the top broken it makes a cleric look weak. When you start with cleric and druid as "benchmarks" for power level you've started off to high to start with.

I don't think [edit:hardly] anyone has used the cleric or druid as "benchmarks" (by benchmark, I assume you mean "standard" as opposed to just "point of reference"). They are saying, "as long as we stay below this, we are still ok." That certainly makes sense if we accept that those are two of the most powerful classes. What would you suggest we try to stay below than?

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I am seeing the opposite Pres man, some folks here will never be satisfied to the class is so over the top broken it makes a cleric look weak. When you start with cleric and druid as "benchmarks" for power level you've started off to high to start with.

But shouldn't they be benchmarks anyway? Shouldn't a caster class be as good as they are? Not better, as good as?

No, they should not be, they are upper level of power the top. The brenchmark should not be the highest point as then you have just made all the lesser classes pointless, the bench mark is the middle ground of power which the druid and cleric are far from.