I think the most soul-crushing roll I've ever seen was one of my players rolling 13 0's on 18 dice... on a damage roll, the one kind of roll where 0's only count as a single success. XD
I wasn't really a fan of the "tick" initiative system used in 2e and in Scion 1e. Excellencies were a little wonky, so we stuck with 1e. 3e isn't a role playing game it's a weapon. That book just is way too big for table use.
3e is such a good system, though! I mean, in a lot of ways it's terrible. XD But the core concept is so good. The combat basically being lifted from Discidia is amazing, and really does a wonderful job of creating the cinematic scenes Exalted is known for while avoiding rocket tag (or at least letting you see the rocket coming).
I do not know what your ST was talking about because the grapple rules in 1e were simple Dex+Brawl or Dex+Martial Arts opposed checks. The writeup for it isn't even complicated. It was literally one paragraph describing the rolls to initiate a grapple and then half of the next page defining what types of grapple holds you could attempt (Clinch, Hold, Sweep, Tackle or Throw) and how damage was applied. Easy peasy
To be fair, I've never actually read the 1e grapple rules, so I don't know what it was about them my ST hated. :)
Sorry, I thought the discussion was about Magus as its own base class. Spellstrike as a feat is an entirely different beast.
Also, multiclassing costs several feats and still doesn't get you more than a couple spells per level. If you want class feats to be the thing Magus gives up compared to Wizard, that's valid, but I imagine a lot of people would take exception to that.
Are we talking 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition Exalted? Because I will disagree with you vehemently about 1st. That game was well put together and required almost no tweaking to make work. Everytime I feel the jitters about a campaign I'm running, my first instinct is to throw it out and just have my players wander the 100 Kingdoms again.
I played 1st Edition Exalted in my younger years, but the systems I ran were 2nd and 3rd. I have a lot of fond memories of playing in that 1e game, but honestly the 2e game I ran is my favorite thing I've ever run.
Even 1st edition had its... messy points, though. I remember my ST telling us that if we ever tried to grapple anything our characters would immediately be struck down by divine retribution rather than trying to learn the grapple rules. XD
Oh man, how did I forget about Binder?
One of the 3PPs did a conversion of Binder to Pathfinder (Called Occultist, unfortunately, which makes it harder to track down now) and I played one for Rise of the Runelords. Easily one of my favorite characters. I would love something like that for 2e. Specifically the bit about finding new entities to contract with organically over the course of the campaign.
Kinda also scratches the "blue mage" itch a bit, depending on how it is implemented. I remember my GM having a couple bosses in RotR become contractable spirits after being defeated, and that was fun.
Yeah, that's my main line of thinking. Wizard doesn't have really strong class features outside of 9th level casting. It has some, but not in the same way that say Champion has strong class features. 9th level casting is most of the class. To give Magus 9th level casting you'd need to make sure their class features don't totally eclipse Wizards.
Of course it's possible that in the final rules, Wizards have really strong, defining class features. If that is the case, then Magus as a 9th level caster becomes much more plausible.
Items could be an interesting tack. Wizards have always had less semi-mandatory item expenses than martial characters, since they don't typically need magic weapons or armor. The existence of a slot-boosting item that wizards want as much as fighters want a magic sword would be neat.
Of course, assuming staves continue to work like they did in the focus test (please please please), basically all casters are going to want a decent staff, so there is that.
Yeah, this. The Exalted system is such a mess that I basically houseruled almost every single mechanic at one point or another, but the setting is so fascinating that it was worth the work. And because of how strongly Exalted ties setting and mechanics together, it's hard to port the setting to other systems.
Never underestimate how much a well-designed setting can make a system attractive. Definitely something Paizo has going for it, also. :)
Michael Sayre wrote:
You might check out the 3pp Battle Lord class from Amora Games if this is something you're still interested in. The Commander from Spheres of Might is also a martial leader type; my wife plays one in our Return of the Runelords game here at the office.
I believe Super Genius Games also has the War Master class, which is very much the martial tactician/bard style class and pretty well written.
Actually, I stockpiled d8s at one point only because detonate is one of my favorite spells. XD
I want to see an artificer, but more along the lines of using gadgets and technological inventions to fight as opposed to just being an item crafter. I want to be a gadgeteer.
Oh! Like the PF2e Alchemist, but for tech items. I'm 100% in favor of that, that would be awesome.
It's also kind of obvious enough, now that I think of it, that I wouldn't be surprised if we got exactly that at some point. Maybe just as an Alchemist archetype.
More than a little late for that.
I would assume it would be one action for one action spells and two actions for two action spells; nothing else really makes sense. Two actions for a one action spell wouldn't be any actual benefit and one action for a two action spell would be hilariously overpowered.
I remain unconvinced that Magus will be a full caster though. :)
Another possibility is 13th Age. But its kinda noodly with some rules and you end up using HEAPS of dice.
I don't think you can really accuse a system of using heaps of dice unless you have played a high-level Exalted game. Nothing quite like the feeling of rolling 53d10 for an attack. :P
I've always felt that it's a bit of a shame in PF1 that the notion of a wizard hitting someone with a staff past level 3 is absolutely absurd. I would love it if, regardless of class, spending an action to try to hit someone wasn't a guaranteed waste. In fact, if a wizard could do the same damage as their cantrips with their staff with only minimal investment, I'd be pretty happy.
One of my first PF2e characters is going to be a high Strength/low Int Wizard, specifically to see how possible this is. And also because I think it's hilarious that's a viable character in 2e. :)
I definitely think Hellknight is more likely to be a prestige class (is that still what we are calling "archetype you can only take at higher levels"?) than a Champion variant. In particular, a Champion of Abadar being called a Hellknight would just be weird. Plus, I doubt they would change the "must kill a barbed devil" requirement, so I don't see Hellknight being available at level 1.
It seems to be the way they are going with partial casters, since sixth level spell lists aren't a thing any more.
It is much more limited than 1e Magus, for sure, although on the other hand Magus had a lot of spells you realistically weren't going to use; I could get behind a tighter design space. As long as there are a variety of focus spell options and you end up with 8-10 meaningfully different, equally useful focus spells by 20th, I don't think that's hugely behind where 6th level casters were in effect.
This puts into words really well why I was thinking Magus can't be an archetype and needs to be a base class. Also Captain Morgan's comments about how the disadvantage of having to target regular AC is gone.
Whatever form Magus takes, I don't think there's any chance at all we'll see something that let's you spellstrike with 9th level spells of an arbitrary list. That would have been arguably broken in 1e, and is definitely broken in 2e. Plus it would mean every new spell has to keep Magus in mind for balance reasons.
Not to sound like a broken record, but as the thread goes on I'm more and more confident that focus spells are how Magus is going to be handled, and it'll be a base class instead of an archetype, with spellstrike only working with it's own focus spells. I think most likely even multiclassing won't let you spellstrike with other spell lists.
However, what does occur to me is that gives Magus a lot of mechanical (but not thematic) overlap with Kineticist. Not sure how much of an issue that is.
Designing a bunch of new spells - especially unique spells - is a lot harder than pruning, though.
And doesn't address the issue with how thematically broad arcane is. I'd much prefer "each spell list does different things" instead of "each spell list does the same things but in different ways", because I think the former gives more value to class features that let you poach other lists.
I'm not surprised they changed how melee touch spells worked, since those spells were previously confusing (almost no one I talked to believed me when I said you could cast the spell, move, and then deliver all in one turn) and also hard to use if you didn't start your turn at a distance.
Starfinder fixed it by making melee touch spells not provoke; switching them to saves is another option.
That does leave spellstrike in a weird place, but again - I honestly don't think Magus will be a proper spellcaster when it comes back. I don't see them giving Magus 9 levels of spells, which means Magus spellstrike is going to be entirely based on Focus Spells, which will be custom designed with spellstrike in mind.
Strong agreement that I want gish as a concept to be viable starting at early levels - 1 or 2, really.
I do think that if we get a dedicated gish class - Magus or Inquisitor or Hunter or w/e - it's going to be focus spell based. I don't see them giving a class ninth level spells ~and~ good martial proficiency right out the gate, and I don't see them bringing 6th level casters back either.
Much as I agree that 6th level casters were a thing Paizo was really good at writing, I totally understand why they were removed from the system.
Can somebody illuminate for me the reasons for the change from twf to sword & shield style?
In character the reason is that Valeros died and decided to take steps to avoid repeating the experience.
Out of character the reason is that the devs a) wanted an iconic fighter that focuses on a more iconic build for the class, and b) wanted an iconic that shows off 2e's fancy new shield rules.
To be fair, I wasn't really trying to thread police so much as I was being amused at how quickly the thread seemed to change topics. :)
@Alchemic_Genius I think the combination of spellstrike and focus spells is interesting enough to warrant it's own class, especially focus spells specifically tailored for spellstrike.
I also think it would be a bit weird as an archetype; I'm having a hard time imagining what class that archetype would be a good fit for.
Seltyiel was already the most mercurial iconic - he started as an Eldritch Knight, then was retconned to be a Magus. I think if PF2e keeps Magus as a base class (again, I hope it does, spellstrike-the-class sounds awesome to me) he will continue to be a Magus, otherwise he will probably go back to being a Fighter/Wizard multiclass.
Strong agreeance with Ramanujan; I really hope that's the direction they go.
You could add a lot of flavor and uniqueness to any given wizard by letting them pick a few spells of their specialty from outside their class list.
Universalists, on the other hand, could either get fewer outside-list picks but from multiple schools, or no outside-list picks but more spells per day.
You could make that same argument for a dwarf born in Cheliax, though.
I imagine the name probably sounds more impressive in the original Elven. :P
Personally I'm not sure. But Paizo managed to make flail snails interesting. Flail. Snails.
After that I believe they can do anything. XD
Continued from the other thread:
The problem with this idea, IMO, is that it limits design space. If the feat just requires a certain proficiency, then any similar feat is going to be directly competing with it and there will be an inevitable "best gish feat". Plus every time you make a new class or a new way to raise proficiency you have to worry about knock-on effects of what old feats you can suddenly qualify for more easily than intended.
All of that is why I'm thinking going with the narrower design space of class feats is better. That way you can have a feat that makes fighters gish, and a feat that makes wizards gish, and they can both work a bit differently and not compete with each other.
I will also mention, though, that I personally hope Magus comes back - not as a "wizard fighter blend" but rather a class with a variety of Focus Spells intended to be delivered via weapon strikes.
Basically "spellstrike the class".
Isabelle Lee wrote:
This is roughly what I figured we'd see at some point, although I was thinking more likely we would see something like a fighter class feat that has the wizard dedication as a prereq.
Which I think I'd actually prefer, because then you can have a similar-but-different feat for wizard/fighters so that they are differentiated from fighter/wizards. I feel like one of the strengths of PF2e is providing that kind of distinction - like how Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians, and Rogues all have mechanically different feats for two weapon fighting.