Why is the Kensi archtype used with the magus base class?

[cadencek]

I can see the Archtype being a Monk Archtype but seriously wtf made people think "Oh look we have this spell casting class... Lets mess with all the other combat classes and give an Archtype best themed for Monks to a spell casting class"

[JAF0]

I actually like the kensai archetype for the magus and have one ready to play beginning in a week or two. I am however interested in others' views on this topic so dotting for interest.

[Madclaw]

I actually think it fits well. Kensai has always been more of a martial and sword related class. If anything it fits fighter better not monk. But I think with the abilities they gave Kensai it fits magus very well.

[Drejk]

I have no problems with Kensai being magus archetype - Fighter which would be first on the list for kensai already got Weapon Master.

[cadencek]

Let me first say that in no way to I mean that the Magus class does not make a semi-logical choice. The Arcane Pool abilities and the ability to enhance your weapon on the fly is very potent for such. I also want to clarify that I am not saying that there is anything mechanically wrong with the archtype.

I just feel with the flavor of the class though it would have been better off with the Monk class. In my mind the Magus class screams out base Eldritch Knight (I mean come on the picture for the guy they use for Eldritch Knight is the same person that they use for the Magus). The Magus is also not a bad class (personally I am not a fan of spell casting classes because I am not a fan of them. I don't hate them I just don't favor them.) and fits the role of a hybrid melee/spell casting class quite well.

My problem, however, stems from the fact that the entire theme of the of the Kensai class down to the very names they use would be better put to use in the Monk class (which is desperately missing this kind of archtype). All of the Iai abilities would be better fueled by Wis than Int, (in my opinion and) and since perfect strike is the only ability that actually uses points from the Arcane Pool of the Magus Class the Perfect Strike could just as easily pull from the Ki Pool (also better themed and flavored in my opinion.)

I will admit to one last thing in that As far as I have seen though most of the other archtypes I have seen (IMO) basically look like trash for what you are giving up in exchange for their abilities with the exception of: most Barbarian archtypes (not all but I don't feel like listing all the ones that "work") because they are giving mostly trap finding and fast movement which are relatively minor in my opinion for what the Barbarian gains. Monk of the Four Winds... it is just stupidly powerful once they begin to level up. Dervish Dancer for the Bard (Why sit and sing to be useful passively when you can be useful actively. Musket Master and Pistolero for the Gunslinger... Just because those two are pretty cool. Lastly Chameleon, Knife Master, and Roof Runner for the rogue because well... for the same reason as the Barbarian... Not all adventures are trap heavy.

[Joyd]

You have an very unconventional sense of which archetypes are the good ones, aside from Musket Master and Pistolero, which are pretty much universally considered all but must-haves if you're using the associated weapon. (Roof Runner, in particular, is generally considered to be bafflingly poor.) That arguably is a good thing; if different people disagree on which archetypes are the good ones, it says that different archetypes are appealing to different people, which is pretty nice.

In general, I think that archetypes are generally designed to err on the side of being a hair weaker than the base class. This is done, I assume, to avoid a situation where nobody wants to take the base class because there's a single archetype that's just clearly so much better. There are some places - such as druid archetypes that aren't Menhir Savant - where they're clearly being extra-cautious with the archetypes.

Why is Kensai a Magus archetype instead of something else? Most likely because I would assume that most archtypes are NOT designed by saying, "We should have something called 'kensai' in the game. Which class should it be an archetype of?", but by saying, "What are some cool archetypes we could make for the magus? How about an archtype that's sort of a quick, low-armor duelist? We could call it 'kensai'; I don't think we've used that name anywhere else."

[FallofCamelot]

This always rubbed me up the wrong way. Kensai to me means master swordsman not a hybrid class. Kensai shouldn't cast spells.

[cadencek]

Thank you for agreeing with me. Please note I am not trying to start an argument (hides the foam swords) I am not a troll, I have no Humanoid (Giant) racial hit dice. I know people wholeheartedly like the archtype... I, however, am not one of them. This archtype in my mind does not belong where it goes. I ask my question because I am baffled and I want to know if there is some logic around this that I am not seeing... I guess.

Joyd wrote:

You have an very unconventional sense of which archetypes are the good ones, aside from Musket Master and Pistolero, which are pretty much universally considered all but must-haves if you're using the associated weapon. (Roof Runner, in particular, is generally considered to be bafflingly poor.) That arguably is a good thing; if different people disagree on which archetypes are the good ones, it says that different archetypes are appealing to different people, which is pretty nice.

In general, I think that archetypes are generally designed to err on the side of being a hair weaker than the base class. This is done, I assume, to avoid a situation where nobody wants to take the base class because there's a single archetype that's just clearly so much better. There are some places - such as druid archetypes that aren't Menhir Savant - where they're clearly being extra-cautious with the archetypes.

Why is Kensai a Magus archetype instead of something else? Most likely because I would assume that most archtypes are NOT designed by saying, "We should have something called 'kensai' in the game. Which class should it be an archetype of?", but by saying, "What are some cool archetypes we could make for the magus? How about an archtype that's sort of a quick, low-armor duelist? We could call it 'kensai'; I don't think we've used that name anywhere else."

To address your third point. My first post was kinda angst filled though, I admit. But I do wish to point out that every time I read that Archtype I think of it as a Monk Archtype. In home games that is easy enough to fix (if you are cleaver with rules anyways). But the real reason I am actually hot and bothered by this is because I just recently started playing in Pathfinder Society and it isn't an Archtype I can use because I have no interest in playing a Magus. And unless Paizo releases another one in later books or errata it simply straight up does not exist in the organized play, it can't be houseruled into organized play games. *Deep breath in... and out* /rant

Edit: Also I just reread the rules because a friend of mine popped in and said he wanted to be a Bard. I proceeded to rant about how bad they where because the main reason for playing a Bard requires them to not contribute to the fighting with their performances because they had to take a standard action to preform. Then he corrected me. So I take back my comment on Bard's only being passively useful.

[Deadmanwalking]

There's always the Sword Saint Samurai Archetype. Kensai means 'sword saint'.

So they've actually both done the concpt as a spellcaster and as a samurai (which seems eminently flavorful as a non-spellcaster to have it).

[Madclaw]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

There's always the Sword Saint Samurai Archetype. Kensai means 'sword saint'.

So they've actually both done the concpt as a spellcaster and as a samurai (which seems eminently flavorful as a non-spellcaster to have it).

+1 to this.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around your thoughts that a class who's name means 'sword saint' would be better fitted to a class that is more reliant on unarmed attacks and not a weapon. Yes, monks can use specific weapons but Kensai should be an archetype for a weapon based class.

[Gnomezrule]

I think the issue is the baggage we attribute to "kensai." Once you are past the name it fits the magus great.

[CrankyRWMage]

Actually playing a Kensai Magus/Monk of the empty hand atm. It rocks!

[ShadowcatX]

Class and archetype names have absolutely no in game relevance. You're perfectly able to be a Kensai with only monk levels.

[Borthos Brewhammer]

Besides, a well-built bard can beat faces all day long

[Jeff Erwin]

My Kensai is actually a rapier-wielding duelist-type. The name doesn't matter.