The Magus NEEDS to be in the Core


Playtest

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The quintessential Warrior-Mage, Gish, Fighter-Mage, Battle-Mage, etc is a character trope that is hugely popular among fantasy RPG-ers. The Magus was a ray of light to fans of this character type, the main factor being you could play a warrior-mage right from level 1 instead of waiting until level 2 to multi-class and/or waiting until level 7 to get into the EK PrC.

That's why I will iterate the Magus NEEDS to be in the core book, more than classes like Alchemist, Oracle, etc. If they can all be in that's great, but Magus HAS to be in there.

Since we are on the subject, some of the changes I want the Magus to have are make it less complicated in play, reduce or remove dependence on the standard gimmick-cheese of touch spells like Shocking Grasp (it's almost become mandatory for every build to go this route, making playing it almost a chore) and allow for both a spellbook Magus and also a spontaneous Magus from the get go (should be a built in class choice at level 1 or failing that at least an archtype)

Magus should be about both casting spells while swinging swords, and those who want to buff their swords/melee skills with touch spells can be an option, it should not be the standard default every feels they MUST play to be competitive.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Counterpoint: It doesn't. Only Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard really need to be in core.


I got a sneaking suspicion that the new action economy and archetypes might make the magus as a class go bye bye. Maybe.


I agree the magus should be in core.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or you can multiclass. Its not mandatory.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The only thing the Magus really had going for it was casting a touch spell through your weapon. It would be relatively easy to add a feat or class ability that could be chosen to make this possible.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Mark mentioned once making a passable Magus as a Wizard with a sword (I think). I’d like to try a build once the play test comes out.

From level 1, you can cast a spell and make an attack due to the 3 action system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since every class is essentially full BAB, and it is possible to invest in proficiency on weapons, even without speculation on multiclassing it seems we do not need this to be a separate class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wizard is getting some abilities to tide folks over. Alchemist is a lot more distinctive than Magus, and (according to Mark Seifter) more popular than Magus.

Magus seems like a bad class to make before folks are used to the new action economy, since the old one was centered around PF1’s action economy.


Magus is indeed VERY popular! Most of the new players I introduce to Pathfinder always want the "Fighter with spells" archetype that Magus offers. I believe this is because of the popularity of these characters are protagonists in video-games. Granted, I often convince them to try other stuff, such as Warpriest that can pull it off in a different way.

Will want a way to fulfill that goal (that doesn't suck) to be able please many of those players that aren't yet RPG fans.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I agree that some sort of Gish option needs to be in core, it doesn't have to be Magus. As others have stated, the new action economy makes casting a spell and attacking with a weapon a standard feature. Feats could replicate a lot of the Magus package. There has been talk of not demoting classes to archetypes, but Magus could also easily be a Bard or Wizard archetype. Heck, even fighter depending on 2e archetypes.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing *needs* to be in core. Within a year of the launch, there will probably be another hardcover with more classes and ancestries so people can play their Kitsune Oracles or Aasimar Magi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
While I agree that some sort of Gish option needs to be in core, it doesn't have to be Magus. As others have stated, the new action economy makes casting a spell and attacking with a weapon a standard feature. Feats could replicate a lot of the Magus package. There has been talk of not demoting classes to archetypes, but Magus could also easily be a Bard or Wizard archetype. Heck, even fighter depending on 2e archetypes.

This is my thought exactly. However, I wouldn't want to see this happen, but then also a Magus added later. One or the other. PF1 had enough archetypes/classes stepping on each other's toes.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You can cast spells and attack in PF2. Seems like a fighter mage type build is possible in core.

Edit: ok we know you can have actions remaining after casting. I made a small assumption.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I love warrior-wizards, and look forward to seeing how they can work in PF2. I personally don't care at all about the spell crits. I highly value the armor wearing. I like the arcane pool usage. Spellstrike is interesting, but I feel overly limiting in terms of what it makes the ideal builds. So I'd love to see a new take on the class -- and if that means its takes more time to deliver the right version for PF2 I'm ok with having to wait for a future (non-core) book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbertorch wrote:
Corrik wrote:
While I agree that some sort of Gish option needs to be in core, it doesn't have to be Magus. As others have stated, the new action economy makes casting a spell and attacking with a weapon a standard feature. Feats could replicate a lot of the Magus package. There has been talk of not demoting classes to archetypes, but Magus could also easily be a Bard or Wizard archetype. Heck, even fighter depending on 2e archetypes.
This is my thought exactly. However, I wouldn't want to see this happen, but then also a Magus added later. One or the other. PF1 had enough archetypes/classes stepping on each other's toes.

This is something I hope we play testers can address during the play test. I think the default result here will be that things will be put forward as archetypes, people will want more from it, and in future splat material, a new class will develop to do the thing better.

I really hope some time is spent with the surveys and player responses figuring out how to hold off on content that people want, but that isn't going to fit in the starting books. I would rather have less classes, archetypes and ancestries in the first book, and have the ones there be very robust and well supported, than too many options that only have one or two legitimate build types.

I hear a lot of folks complain about how Starfinder feels too cookie cutter, and I think that is a result of people judging it by the one book that was released against a system that has tons of expansion material.


Conceptually, the coolest magus would be a full wizard (or sorcerer) who can handle a sword. In PF2, the AoO is not going to be an automatic threat, and the action economy allows for move+attack+spell (admittedly, we don't know yet how many spells can be cast on just 1 action, but some exist). So it should be possible to pull this off without creating a dedicated class for it. That would be the ideal solution imo. It doesn't preclude the addition of a more specific class later on.

Sure, there might be a problem with casting while wearing armor, but isn't that a sacred cow that could be retired at this point?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now that I think of this...
There was words that the number of actions used to cast a spell equal to the different components it needs...
Would that mean that a spell that was rendered "Silent" by the way of a metamagic feat or something similar quicker to cast?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:

Conceptually, the coolest magus would be a full wizard (or sorcerer) who can handle a sword. In PF2, the AoO is not going to be an automatic threat, and the action economy allows for move+attack+spell (admittedly, we don't know yet how many spells can be cast on just 1 action, but some exist). So it should be possible to pull this off without creating a dedicated class for it. That would be the ideal solution imo. It doesn't preclude the addition of a more specific class later on.

Sure, there might be a problem with casting while wearing armor, but isn't that a sacred cow that could be retired at this point?

I actually really disagree. For me, conceptually, the coolest Magus is a standalone Battle-Mage, who has needed a specific path and training to have both martial and magic prowess.

Mechanically, though, I'm much less concerned about where it finds itself as long as it's done well.


GeneticDrift wrote:

You can cast spells and attack in PF2. Seems like a fighter mage type build is possible in core.

Edit: ok we know you can have actions remaining after casting. I made a small assumption.

Oh, yeah. It's seeming to me as though a magus-style concept would be doable multiple ways given the new action economy and BAB system!


booo, hisss, boo I say. BOOO!!!! the magus should not be in the core and neither should the alchemist and the oracle. onmly the witch and hunter should have been added.

so till then BOOO I say

Dark Archive

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Nothing *needs* to be in core. Within a year of the launch, there will probably be another hardcover with more classes and ancestries so people can play their Kitsune Oracles or Aasimar Magi.

You don't know that. They have said there is stuff in the pipe line but they have not said what will be coming.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Elfteiroh wrote:

Now that I think of this...

There was words that the number of actions used to cast a spell equal to the different components it needs...
Would that mean that a spell that was rendered "Silent" by the way of a metamagic feat or something similar quicker to cast?

Exactly why I'm hopeful. if you are already using still spell then why not wear armor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steelfiredragon wrote:

booo, hisss, boo I say. BOOO!!!! the magus should not be in the core and neither should the alchemist and the oracle. onmly the witch and hunter should have been added.

so till then BOOO I say

All I could think of was this when I ready your comment....


A fighter-mage should not only be able to fight (not a good as a fighter, obviously) and cast (again, not as good as a wizard/sorcerer) but they need to be able to do both simultaneously AND in a way that is special.

The new action economy allows us to cast a spell and attack in the same turn, however ANY caster can do this, so it isn't special.

Also, spending 2 actions to cast a spell and one to attack is kinda lame. A theoretical Magus should be allowed to substitute an attack for Somatic components at some point.

The Eldritch Knight's biggest flaw is that it doesn't really do anything special. Yeah, you get better at hitting things and better at casting, but you can't really merge the two effectively. (Also, the capstone is bad.)

The Magus fixed this by adding Spell Combat and Spell Strike with some other magically martial abilities, but the Magus also has crap spells to chose from until REALLY high level. Its effectiveness is also based primarily on burning your extremely limited resources to be a slightly less accurate, but slightly harder hitting fighter for a short period of time. You are almost a magical barbarian, except the barbarian is still useful after he runs out of rage.

I want something closer to 3.5's Spellsword and bring back 3.5's Arcane Strike (RAI) as a Magus Class feature. (Pathfinder's version is a trap feat.)

Oh, and also, give me a Sorcerous Magus that isn't crap. Eldritch Scion is basically gimped unnecessarily until halfway through his career. Heaven forbid we have a spontaneous caster that can actually function at low levels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of it it is core or not, please don't lock Magus into the sword-and-spell two-weapon fighting gimmick. It is a cool aesthetic, and can be fun, but I'd really like to see more arcane warriors with two-handed weapons, or two-weapon fighting, or using a shield and spear, or really, almost any other fighting style.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
Regardless of it it is core or not, please don't lock Magus into the sword-and-spell two-weapon fighting gimmick. It is a cool aesthetic, and can be fun, but I'd really like to see more arcane warriors with two-handed weapons, or two-weapon fighting, or using a shield and spear, or really, almost any other fighting style.

I'd definitely like to see a Magus with magical fighting styles.

Examples:

Duelist Magus: Magus that uses his bonded dueling weapon to parry spells and can riposte with Spellstrike.

Shield Magus: Magus who specializes in using a shield. Shield Magus' add their shield bonus to spell attacks and enhance their shield instead of a weapon.

Armor Magus: Magus who specializes in using armor. Their magical armor grants special resistances and doesn't hamper their spellcasting. They enhance their armor, instead of a weapon.

TWF Magus: This Magus has learned how to enhance 2 weapons simultaneously. They can Spellstrike with 2 spells at a time.

THF Magus: This Magus has learned how to sunder magical effects, dispelling them with his two-handed weapon. The can also "Power Attack" with Spellstrike.

Archer Magus: Arcane Archer


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd actually go as far as to say the Magus shouldn't be let anywhere near core. What made it interesting in PF1 was its unique action economy. Now that any class can now pull a similar stunt, I think we are going to need to see the action economy heavily tested before we can come up with the best way to give the Magus unique toys again. Probably more testing than the playtest actually allows for.

Remember, paizo had years of 3.5 to draw from when designing the original Magus, and we still got a very confusing set of class features. Give these guys some time to see how the Magus can fit into this new paradigm, and in the meantime make a spell sword with other classes.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
Mark mentioned once making a passable Magus as a Wizard with a sword (I think). I’d like to try a build once the play test comes out.

I doubt that some multiclass thing will magically turn up better designed than an actual class designed around this. Especially something as interesting and well put together as the Pathfinder Magus.

Being told "you can build it badly in core" is always junk anyway. Same issue with the ninja. If someone says "Help me build a rogue", your answer is to discuss what they want to do with that rogue, and point them in a helpful direction. If someone says "I want to play ninja", and the game is young enough (because none ship with a functional ninja), the next statement is "well, take rogue, then grab potentially suboptimal weapon "short sword" and call it a wakizashi, then grab suboptimal feats X and Y so you can do ninja stuff..."

When someone wants to play a character, the ideal case is that that character concept exists as a template. Assuming you can get there from multiclassing is often a bad assumption- unless the designers very carefully considered this potential and have a bunch of solid multiclass feats (or other plug-in abilities) that make this functional. Certainly, we've never seen this type of build function properly since at least AD&D, and possibly not even then. Meanwhile, alternate classes and prestige classes have a very high likelihood of giving the player exactly what they want.

Also, after following this hobby for so many years, I'm really sick of hearing about how some character concept that is always done correctly in a splatbook later can TOTALLY THIS TIME be done using stock core rules. It can't. It never ever ever can. The wakizashi isn't a short sword, the fighter/mage isn't a magus, the kitsune isn't a "refluffed" gnome, or whatever, none of those things are ever true.


Xenocrat wrote:
Counterpoint: It doesn't. Only Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard really need to be in core.

Fighting man, priest and mage

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Counterpoint: It doesn't. Only Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard really need to be in core.
Fighting man, priest and mage

It's "Fighting-Man", "Magic-User", and "Cleric". Cleric was the first non-hyphenated class!


Thanks for the clarification uncle, that was before my time.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A core magus is the difference between "I'll wait a couple of years for more content before I play/run this game" and "I'm playing/running this game the moment it releases!"


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Posts with NEED in the title NEED to be automatically deleted. There's a significant difference between what the game needs and what an individual would like, and playtesting is hard enough when people can separate those two things, nevermind when they can't see beyond their own biases.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Alchemist IS the new magic warrior.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thflame wrote:
A fighter-mage should not only be able to fight (not a good as a fighter, obviously) and cast (again, not as good as a wizard/sorcerer) but they need to be able to do both simultaneously AND in a way that is special.

Why is a special sauce necessary? Why is a distinct wizard build insufficient?


Slowly realizing how PF 2.0 is casting aside you and your favorites.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Counterpoint: It doesn't. Only Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard really need to be in core.

Making Thief a separate class was a mistake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Counterpoint: It doesn't. Only Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard really need to be in core.
Making Thief a separate class was a mistake.

It really was. A singular martial class has so much more design space to be awesome without carving it up into multiple classes with distinct niches.

Grand Lodge

I wonder if arcane spell failure for armour is still in?

Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought the bard was supposed to be the core book magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
Slowly realizing how PF 2.0 is casting aside you and your favorites.

Because it's not in a core book? Give it a year, can't expect all like 30 classes to be in the core rulebook.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm honestly looking forward to playing "traditional" classes for a while, after a steady diet of kineticists, vigilantes, occultists, inquisitors, bloodragers, oracles, swashbucklers, and warpriests with the odd monk or paladin sprinkled in that has been Pathfinder for me of late.


cfalcon wrote:
Also, after following this hobby for so many years, I'm really sick of hearing about how some character concept that is always done correctly in a splatbook later can TOTALLY THIS TIME be done using stock core rules. It can't. It never ever ever can. The wakizashi isn't a short sword, the fighter/mage isn't a magus, the kitsune isn't a "refluffed" gnome, or whatever, none of those things are ever true.

I don't know if building a decent magus with PF2 rules is possible - we haven't seen enough. But you've certainly given me an itching impulse to give it a shot (not through multiclassing).


captain yesterday wrote:
Alchemist IS the new magic warrior.

booo, hisss, boo I say, BOO!!!!

now if you said it was the new drunken warrior cause he makes his own beer in the field....


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets make it simple OP.

It didnt make the cut.

Alchemist was simply a much more popular class, that is why it is core and the magus isnt. If magus was so loved that everyone wanted and played all the time in PF1... it could be core now.


If multiclassing is actually viable for casters then this won't be an issue. Hopefully they get rid of level by level multiclassing, it really is a horrible system.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Lets make it simple OP.

It didnt make the cut.

Alchemist was simply a much more popular class, that is why it is core and the magus isnt. If magus was so loved that everyone wanted and played all the time in PF1... it could be core now.

Honestly, setting aside popularity, the alchemist is still a much better choice than Magus. They have stated they want to redesign alchemy from the ground up, and the alchemist obviously can tie into that. It's perfectly placed to show off new changes to the system as a selling point.

The magus is pretty much the opposite. Paizo has put a lot of emphasis on how simple the new action economy is. Everything is an action and everyone gets 3 of them. The magus, as we know it from PF1, is built around creating exceptions to the normal action economy. Why would you want that in your core release?


I find the mechanics of the PF1 Magus to be pretty clunky.

"My character hits things with a sword, once per round."
"My character makes a concentration check, casts Arcane Touch, and then hits enemies twice with a sword."
"Why can you cast a spell and attack twice in the time it takes me to attack once?"
"Because magic, that's why."

Just make "deliver a touch spell through a weapon attack" a feat. That should be all that's needed.


I think the build needs special attention through options like feats. But the action economy is going to take some getting used to, and the magus should be able to manipulate the action economy like no one else, so it really shouldn't be in core. My worry would be that options coming after would make it redundant because we didn't know how to make it fill the right design space. And if that niche can be filled using other methods, maybe the idea doesn't need to be a class?

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / The Magus NEEDS to be in the Core All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.