A message about the advanced class guide


Advanced Class Guide Playtest General Discussion

51 to 65 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Joana wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Was there a Magus playtest?
Yes.

Thanks, I wanted to take a look. This is my first time being around for a Paizo playtest and I want to see how the Magus came to be.


One thing I've been looking for from the magus was a way to 'tweak' their spell list, ever so slightly. Maybe a feat to add a set of bloodline spells to the available list, or a feat to add a domain set to the list, or... something. Obviously there's a concern about folks cherry-picking one or two abusable spells - the thought would be to do something flavorful (like a bloodline or a domain), possibly with some associated cost (restricted school? minimum 1-rd casting time? something...).

I know this isn't really the forum for it, but I needed to vent. thanks!


One interesting thing was that at least in one thread there were suggestions of just sticking with the Sorcerer/Wizard list but it was shot down for being potentially abuseable with the caveat that 1-6 level spells could be gained through an arcana. Currently playing a Magus and looked at what I could take with that arcana and it didn't seem that great unless there are some Frostbite-like spells that I'm missing. I did pick up Mage Armor (dex magus) just so that I don't have to waste prep time with shield, but spending an arcana for Mage armor feels so weak just to get rid of an annoyance.

Currently Magus and Summoner are poster examples of why I think shared spell lists are a good idea. Especially considering that so many classes feature means of out-of-list spell access.


Malwing wrote:

One interesting thing was that at least in one thread there were suggestions of just sticking with the Sorcerer/Wizard list but it was shot down for being potentially abuseable with the caveat that 1-6 level spells could be gained through an arcana. Currently playing a Magus and looked at what I could take with that arcana and it didn't seem that great unless there are some Frostbite-like spells that I'm missing. I did pick up Mage Armor (dex magus) just so that I don't have to waste prep time with shield, but spending an arcana for Mage armor feels so weak just to get rid of an annoyance.

Currently Magus and Summoner are poster examples of why I think shared spell lists are a good idea. Especially considering that so many classes feature means of out-of-list spell access.

I think class specific spell lists can work, if they are done to make the class unique and not in a way to remove power from that class. Sadly the magus is an example of a spell list made to nerf the class.


legolizard wrote:
Malwing wrote:

One interesting thing was that at least in one thread there were suggestions of just sticking with the Sorcerer/Wizard list but it was shot down for being potentially abuseable with the caveat that 1-6 level spells could be gained through an arcana. Currently playing a Magus and looked at what I could take with that arcana and it didn't seem that great unless there are some Frostbite-like spells that I'm missing. I did pick up Mage Armor (dex magus) just so that I don't have to waste prep time with shield, but spending an arcana for Mage armor feels so weak just to get rid of an annoyance.

Currently Magus and Summoner are poster examples of why I think shared spell lists are a good idea. Especially considering that so many classes feature means of out-of-list spell access.

I think class specific spell lists can work, if they are done to make the class unique and not in a way to remove power from that class. Sadly the magus is an example of a spell list made to nerf the class.

They can work, but I think the only real benefits is the feeling of uniqueness. Having a real unique means either more spells, (I don't want there to be that many new spells. Spell selection can be as annoying as feat selection.) or remixed spell lists and I don't think the benefit outweighs the benefit of backwards compatability and space saving when there are means outside of spell lists for unique spell acquisition. Not to mention that it would hurt the new classes if third party spells, Player Companion line spells, or Campaign Setting line spells come into play by cutting them off to previously published spells outside the core books.

I think having a beefed spell list like the Summoner defeats the purpose of having a 6/9 list as opposed to a full caster list. At that point it might as well have a full 9 levels of spells.

I think having a custom list like the Magus both strips the class down and pigeon-holes it into a mode of play set by whoever decides on the list.

For a 4/9 caster like Bloodrager probably need a list because 4 levels of casting over 20 levels isn't very impactful. I know with Paladin and Ranger I'm thankful for archetypes that allow me to do away with them entirely.


Grimmy wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Sure, and a magus's ability to make a melee attack and cast a spell the same round is basically the same as melee attack + quickened spell, and therefore "not new."

Feel free to continue nitpicking and focusing on the negatives instead of trying to improve the classes.

It really is. I wish people would take a moment and look at the end effect of things. If they're exactly the same thats not very interesting.
Seriously? You're saying spell combat was nothing new? It changed the action economy radically without being unbalanced for a base class across all the levels. Such a design triumph IMO.

Sean put it fairly succinctly. Its just a free quicken with a full attack. I won't even go into how ridiculously powerful Magus builds are. Intensified Selective Shocking Grasp on a 15-20 crit rate is ridiculous. In a 2nd level slot. Or you can use Snowball with close range and avoid SR as well.

The only thing limiting the Magus is it's stat dependency. And if you just use Touch spells you don't even. Just a 16 Int for your spells.

The Exchange

Argg... I feel you are all comparing the Bloodrager to the wrong thing. Over and over again it's magus this and magus that. Just because it has the magus spell list does not make it an equivalent for magus.

It has a full BAB and 4 levels of spells. Compare it to the Paladin and Ranger. Stop trying to come up with spells in combat for it to use, it's not trying to do that, the Bloodrager is about beating face and also allows you to cast a spell or two as a utility in case you need it. You don't see people whining about the lack of ranger combat spells, or paladins not having enough slots, do you?

Think of it as an arcane counterpart to the paladin/ranger. It's something I've always wanted, getting a handful of useful arcane spells to go along with my full BAB fighter.

What should really be seeing more work is balancing the different bloodlines against each other. Determining if they should get useful things at all levels or how many of them are now where more powerful options are balanced out with a few real stinkers(I'm looking at you Arcane). Or how to improve the ones that just need a full overhaul aka fey.


Scavion wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Sure, and a magus's ability to make a melee attack and cast a spell the same round is basically the same as melee attack + quickened spell, and therefore "not new."

Feel free to continue nitpicking and focusing on the negatives instead of trying to improve the classes.

It really is. I wish people would take a moment and look at the end effect of things. If they're exactly the same thats not very interesting.
Seriously? You're saying spell combat was nothing new? It changed the action economy radically without being unbalanced for a base class across all the levels. Such a design triumph IMO.

Sean put it fairly succinctly. Its just a free quicken with a full attack. I won't even go into how ridiculously powerful Magus builds are. Intensified Selective Shocking Grasp on a 15-20 crit rate is ridiculous. In a 2nd level slot. Or you can use Snowball with close range and avoid SR as well.

The only thing limiting the Magus is it's stat dependency. And if you just use Touch spells you don't even. Just a 16 Int for your spells.

Yeah but look at what a new feeling class we got using just a couple things that were "not new" just combined in a new way. That's the point I took from what he said.


Virilitas wrote:

Argg... I feel you are all comparing the Bloodrager to the wrong thing. Over and over again it's magus this and magus that. Just because it has the magus spell list does not make it an equivalent for magus.

It has a full BAB and 4 levels of spells. Compare it to the Paladin and Ranger. Stop trying to come up with spells in combat for it to use, it's not trying to do that, the Bloodrager is about beating face and also allows you to cast a spell or two as a utility in case you need it. You don't see people whining about the lack of ranger combat spells, or paladins not having enough slots, do you?

Think of it as an arcane counterpart to the paladin/ranger. It's something I've always wanted, getting a handful of useful arcane spells to go along with my full BAB fighter.

What should really be seeing more work is balancing the different bloodlines against each other. Determining if they should get useful things at all levels or how many of them are now where more powerful options are balanced out with a few real stinkers(I'm looking at you Arcane). Or how to improve the ones that just need a full overhaul aka fey.

I don't disagree that it's more equivalent to Ranger and Paladin, but I think what I was talking about earlier was that if I were given a choice between Bloodrager being Paladin-style or Magus-style, I'd probably go Magus.

Its not really a problem because we don't have an arcane 4/9 caster but I never liked Paladin/Ranger spellcasting so I really REALLY agree with making the Rage Bloodlines more dynamic. In fact I'd be happier if Bloodrager had cooler Ragelines and skipped the spells altogether.

Grand Lodge

I have to say that, overall, I have been very excited and impressed with the playtest guide. A lot of fairly new mechanics, without cutting totally new things out of whole cloth.

That, combined with the open (PFS friendly even) playtest, and the rapid turnaround of changes and revisions, are a fairly new experience for me.

Are things perfect? Nope, that's why we're testing it. And from what I've seen thus far, it appears to be working.


I love the number of options here! Not only will we be getting ten new classes, but /they'll/ get archetypes /and/ their parent classes will get archetypes! I don't need everything to be perfect. So long as there are one or two that really line up with my personal tastes, life is good!


Virilitas wrote:

You don't see people whining about the lack of ranger combat spells, or paladins not having enough slots, do you?

That is because Rangers do have combat spells.

And people do complain about lower slot numbers.


As GM i celebrate every new book and look forward to seing what I can pull off with this new one.
I for one am not against 10 new classes, yet still I worry if 10 new classes in 1 book might induce class bloat.

I dont know if at all possible due to all the announcements "there wil be 10 new classes" but have you considered perhaps not releasing 10 classes in total if, at launch, a class or two still feels unfinished?

Idd be perfectly happy to get only 8 if it meant the last two would come out at a later date (In paperback I guess) or not at all. A class that flops might become the poster child for a regime with the name "Pathfinder innovators make massive flop class, pathfinder trend dies, is D&D Next our only hope?" (Though in truth, ill prolly play 3.x till the day I die, which means you guys are my only hope for quality content! Quality over quantity!)

Dark Archive

I can only hope that anyone notices any information posted in this old post, however I am wondering and yes it is a bit forward but does anyone know of any plans for advanced class options for the 10 new classes released in the advanced class guide.

Thanks to everyone,

Dark Archive

I am looking at the new classes and considering playing one in a new adventure. I was wondering how they hold up to there counterparts. If I classify a standard adventure group of 4 as Fighter, Wizard, Healer, Rogue and then place the 10 new classes in that category I get Fighter (Bloodrager, Brawler, Slayer, Swashbuckler and Warpriest-maby) Wizard (Arcanist) Cleric (Shaman), Rogue (Investigator) and Bard (Hunter, Skald). When broken down into these areas I am wondering how these classes compare in an adventure to the counterpart.

I do not discount that I am making some generalizations however in a group without a healer and instead they have a druid that character becomes the defacto healer. All characters fill a function with in a game; and I am looking at an entirely new set of classes. I was wondering what impression (if anything) has everyone gotten from the new classes usefulness in actual play.

My first impression
I have not played the characters yet, but from first impressions the fighter classes all have full bab; in my experience anything with full bab will hold true to its function, apart from flavor change and perhaps some dps maxing these characters all look to fill the part. The Arcanist looks to me more of a wizard than a sorcerer but all the same it is effective, the Exploits give it greater endurance over its counterparts however it has fewer spells than either and still needs a spell book so its a toss. The Cleric archetype Shamon is a combination of Druid, Witch and Oracle, this class is every-bit as convoluted as it seems having reduced spells per day, a limited spell list of the Druid and None of the good Hexes of the Witch I actually call this class a difficult option as even a alternative healer. The Rogue option of Investigator seems like a functional Rogue; apart from its reduce DPS, strange tie of Alchemist abilities and not gaining many of the classes more functional abilities until level 3 or 4, the class being the only alternative to a de-trapper other than an estranged ranger it is something else to play at least. The last two classes Skald and Hunter unfortunately fall in the vicinity of the 5th wheel. These characters lack the commitment of the other classes, they have no exclusive functions (IE healer, fighter, trapper or crowd control) and fall in the same category of the Bard. A bard lover myself, beside the point these classes fail to fill any specific function other than enhancement characters; or perhaps DPS? Further than that the Skald seems like a more combat oriented bard and the Hunter seems like a failed attempt at Druid; because the later offers the familiar that the Hunter gets with the same BAB a better casting ability and shapeshifting abilities to boot.

How far off am I, this is just a first impression and I would enjoy any responses to correct my misunderstandings. Most importantly please post any of your own experiences as to the functionality of the new characters.

51 to 65 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / General Discussion / A message about the advanced class guide All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion