ruimpranick's page

If we agree that the design philosophy behind Magus is that it's a warrior first, mage second

I could even agree with you, but a player don't take magus to be a mundane fighter and a caster if needed, they take magus to spellstrike.

IMO if a class has a unique feature, the player should be able to use it at least once per combat. Relliable spellstrike being so limited takes out the fantasy of playing with magus.

What bugs me about this idea is that it breaks how the game works so soon since it's release.

One thing I love about PF2 and what made me use it as my main system is it's organization, all caster have universal mechanics, all martials heavy had patterns on their feats and abilities, they all are still unique and fun, but they followed patterns.

The magus and summoner breaks this idea entirely by creating a whole new system just for this two classes, I mean, if you guys wanted to make halfcasters, you could have made it with champion and rangers as well.

And a simple solution to it is just use archetype spell system, this way they'll not be great at spellcasting, but they'll cast nonetheless

I just think this 4 spells mechanic is a red alert for me, if they start putting new subsystems and different rules in a less then 1yo game, imagine what the game will look like in 4 or 5 years.

i'm just afraid it becomes 3.5 all over again.

Totally on board with you on this, in my opinion if paizo had the intention of making halfcasters they should have done it with champions or rangers as well. The rulebook already set the standard, or you´re a caster hitting 10th level spells and all the progression or you´re a martial character, you could have a lot of fun tricks and focus spells, but you work mechanically as martial.

If you want to play as a summoner caster, take a caster archetype, you'll get 6th level spells just like 1e.

Actually Ghilteras has a point, in the part 6 of Doomsday Dawn the main focus of it is to see how skills are working, and it really got me disappointed, until then I didn't pay attention about skills, of course the whole concept bothered me but the focus was killing foes and stuff so I ignored it.

But when I read it I saw simple tasks like gathering informations that wouldn't be that difficult to gather, or picklocking a servant's room that should be a easy task if you stop to think that no one would care about a servant a DC 25 check. I'm pretty sure that if it was a low level adventure those DCs would be much lower.

People talk about how epic it gets when you get high level but the only thing I'm seeing is the DCs getting higher for no reason, and don't call this bad GMing or nothing like that, because even the official content does this.

and even if you can make pertinent DCs, climbing trees is each level easier and the solution to that is stop placing trees and start placing flat walls, it loses all sense, the challenge isn't gone, it's just skinned

I have two large critics about level=proficiency designing.
First is the DCs inflations, where you don't really reward your character for having more bonuses, you simply hinders it's tests. Ex: if a 1st lvl guy tries to climb a wall and have a +5 the GM would probally put DC 15 to the test, and if a 20th lvl guy tries to climb the same wall with a +25 GMs would probally put a DC 35 or 40, just to give a challenge to his life, of course there are more challanges than climbing a damm wall, but you got the point
Secondly it just despise the expert, master and legendary skills, to increase a skill to legendary, you need at least 15th, and with a bonus of +17 (counting the expert and master bonus) to a test, a +1 is useless, i mean, of course a +1 always help, but it's worthier become trained in a skills than giving a +1 to a test you're already awesome