| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the melee wizard could cast a spell and attack once in the same round. IMO though, the Magus in theory would do one better: It would have a newfangled Spell Combat that might, say, let it make an attack as part of the Somatic component or something. Basically, play with the action economy to cast and attack in fewer actions than others can (kinda like how Fighters can double-move and strike in fewer actions than others can.) And then Spellstrike to deliver touch spells through weapon (same as in PF1e). As such, I think there's still plenty of room for Magus to fill.
EDIT: And of course the Magus could in theory do this in up to Heavy Armor, something I predict the Wizard will still have issues doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If nothing else, Magus will be providing extra hitpoints and weapon/armor proficiency over Wizard. But, in the meantime, people will have Magus-like options.
In theory a 50/50 fighter wizard multiclassing with a unifying archetype could make a good Magus. Same average HP and 1/2 casting overall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This logic will also apply to a cleric acting like a warpriest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the melee wizard could cast a spell and attack once in the same round. IMO though, the Magus in theory would do one better: It would have a newfangled Spell Combat that might, say, let it make an attack as part of the Somatic component or something. Basically, play with the action economy to cast and attack in fewer actions than others can (kinda like how Fighters can double-move and strike in fewer actions than others can.) And then Spellstrike to deliver touch spells through weapon (same as in PF1e). As such, I think there's still plenty of room for Magus to fill.
EDIT: And of course the Magus could in theory do this in up to Heavy Armor, something I predict the Wizard will still have issues doing.
Yeah, the way i see it, this just means it opens up the option for the magus to do more. Now that you dont need magus to be the only class that can cast and attack in the same round, they can focus on making them the best at it, and giving them some other abilities to make them a bit more unique.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like if there is not design space for "someone who is better at fighting than the wizard, but not as good as the fighter, who is not as good at spellcasting as the wizard but pretty clearly better than the fighter" then something has gone terribly wrong in the design of those two classes.
This logic will also apply to a cleric acting like a warpriest.
This logic can also apply to any of the hybrid Claases. It'll depend on just what you can buy with your class feats. No need to make Brawler or Shaman, just buy their abilities. Heck people are Guessing Oracle will be rolled into Cleric.
It's going to be interesting to see what classes are transferred
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on secondary stuff, like Arcane Spell Failure. If it still exists, a Magus could have some class ability to cast spells while in armor. If it does not exist (or can be ignored with the proper proficiency in the armor), then yes, it's not a big deal, you can do a lot of its stuff with a muscle wizard.
However, a few things that a Magus could do, that a Wizard could not, include higher Fortitude Save, access to better weapon proficiencies, or a kind of "arcana pool" that let him do cool things with magic and swords at the same time.
The biggest ability a magus has is the ability to enhance their weapon as a swift action, which would be a single action in PF2. Given that a magic weapon has double damage dice this is a huge ability.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always felt like I've had what classes are necessary since at least the 3E era. Time and time again folks say they want a certain concept and I say you can get that with multi-classing. When the alternative classes were proposed, I didnt get it. When the hybrid class book was proposed, I said it wasnt needed.
Time and time again I have been wrong. The new classes add interesting elements I couldn't even imagine. In fact, the new classes answer the "what is Pathfinder" question. The new classes are Paizo's contribution to fantasy TTRPG. I dont think it will be PF without them.
That said, I agree the new design makes it easier than ever to build your own gish. Though I think it would be sad to pass on the opportunity to expand the game into further territory. This is coming from a guy who could probably be satisfied with just the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Magus has a lot more going for it than just Spell Combat (which may not be a necessary feature with the new action economy).
It's not just proficiencies with weapons and armour either, it's the arcane pool points, the recall abilities, Spellstrike (which I guess could easily be a class feat for the wizard) and Magus Arcana.
The Magus is not a Wizard who also does swords or a Fighter who also does spells, but a through and through martial spellcaster. The Magus gets to enhance their weapon with arcane energies, use those same arcane energies to reflect spells back at their opponents or phase their weapon through armour. They get to apply select Metamagic truly on the fly. Things a Wizard doesn't need and a Fighter doesn't train for.
It's not a generic Red Mage who does both magic and fighting at a subpar level. It's a Spellcaster who uses magic in conjunction with martial combat.
There's certainly room for that in the game as more than a hybrid class archetype. Though it's probably not something that needs to be in from the start.
Class feats and archetypes make those things pretty easy to add to existing classes though.
I'm not saying we shouldn't get a Magus as a standalone class, just that it will need to have a new identity developed to make it stand out from the pack in the new system.
Not neccessarily with very modular classes. If as a wizard I can opt to not invest anything into spells casting (to say be 30% worse at spells than someone who went for that) and funneled it into fighting I can achieve that. Conversely maybe as a Fighter I don't pump everything into fighting and take some multiclass style feats to get limited spell casting.
One can still establish distance between the Wizard and Magus by reasserting that the magic the Magus gets is very much focused on offense and defense rather than utility, which the Wizard presumably is not.
We also don't really have a good idea about what makes fighters special short of "fast progression on proficiencies", but presumably there are a bunch of fightery things in feats that wizards cannot get.
The flexibility of 3 action economy (3AE) allows for decent gishes with just the CRB, and that is cool. Im sure Paizo will developed later a better gish, whatever it is called
I'd like to see spellstrike as a feat. Arcarna could be a feat line too (or maybe class feats for an archetype).
One feat to make you able to spell strike and then one feat to make somatic casting into an attack.
So a caster could
use 2 acts (i think this is the normal amount) too cast a spell. if it has a somatic component. you can make an attack and you can make one deliver the spell.
so with 2 acts, you get 2 attacks and 1 spell or 1 attack and one spell.
They could also have a flavorful martial cantrip or two which would give the feeling of spell strike but be easier to contain within the design space. Less risk of novaing, less worries about how it interacts with every new spell.
Example:
Energy Strike (Cantrip, Arcane, Evocation, Verbal, Somatic)
As part of the somatic action for this spell you make an attack with a melee weapon. On a hit that attack deals its normal weapon damage plus 1d6 fire, frost, or electricity damage per spell level (Cantrips are always cast at a level equal to your highest spell slot level). This energy damage is also multiplied on a critical hit.