There are probably other threads on this, so feel free to redirect me, but what is it about the fighter/mage archetype that people feel isn't well covered by (multi-classing + Eldritch Knight)?
There are probably other threads on this, so feel free to redirect me, but what is it about the fighter/mage archetype that people feel isn't well covered by (multi-classing + Eldritch Knight)?
A few things off the top of my head
1: can't be it at level 1
2: folks seem to find the EK underpowered
3: can't take it till level 7
4: some folks don't think the EK fills that role as it's not an armored caster at all.
folks want something from level 1 onward, not to build it up over 7-10 levels
The duskblade from PH2 is a decent version of the melee-mage. It has full BAB, armored casting, a very tight focused spell list, and enough spells per day to use both magic and might at arms consistently. Lots of their spells are cast as swift actions, and they also get Quick Cast, which lets them cast any spell they know as a swift action once per day (more at higher levels).
Most of their spells either target a single opponent, buff, or increase mobility. Basically, a nice variety of trumpcards.
There are probably other threads on this, so feel free to redirect me, but what is it about the fighter/mage archetype that people feel isn't well covered by (multi-classing + Eldritch Knight)?
I think that my biggest issue with the archetype being covered only by multi-classing/Eldritch Knight is that it only really fights and casts spells. He doesn't really get any abilities beyond those two things and that makes the combination feel a bit bland to me or at least as bland as a 3.5 sorcerer or wizard felt to me. They are both were fun to play and covered their archetype well, but I like them better with class packages and abilities to help define them.
I want to see the class have a strong (in theme and not necessarily super powerful) set of abilities to define it beyond "I can cast spells while swinging around martial weapons."
If all there is to the Magus is "he is an arcane spellcaster that can fight well," I would feel just as apathetic about it as someone just describing the oracle as "a spontaneous cleric."
There will be a open playtest for the Magus, BTW.
Yes, but when? I'm also curious if the new magic system will be play tested or if they will keep that under wraps.
There are probably other threads on this, so feel free to redirect me, but what is it about the fighter/mage archetype that people feel isn't well covered by (multi-classing + Eldritch Knight)?
the biggest thing is that its a PrC so you cant do it right away
|
The duskblade from PH2 is a decent version of the melee-mage. It has full BAB, armored casting, a very tight focused spell list, and enough spells per day to use both magic and might at arms consistently. Lots of their spells are cast as swift actions, and they also get Quick Cast, which lets them cast any spell they know as a swift action once per day (more at higher levels).
Most of their spells either target a single opponent, buff, or increase mobility. Basically, a nice variety of trumpcards.
yeah...but that class is broken... even compared to pathfinders classes.
personally I hope the Magus is more like the Runeblade than the Duskblade
|
|
yeah...but that class is broken... even compared to pathfinders classes.
That's a false statement. Have you played the class or run a game for someone playing it? It's a really fun class to play (my favourite in fact), but it's a one-trick pony with a ton of shortcomings and it's really, really not as overpowered in practice as it might seem on paper. It's behind the power curve for Pathfinder classes, though still a blast to play. It's honestly one of the pillars of 3.5 design, standing atop a veritable ocean of boring and mediocre classes.
|
|
(this is not to say that I want the magus to be a duskblade carbon copy, though I wouldn't complain too much if that happened... based on Paizo staffers' comments on these boards, I'd be really surprised if they stuck too closely to the duskblade model and I'd rather see something totally mechanically unlike any other arcane warrior class we've seen so far anyway)
Creative Director
|
yeah...but that class is broken... even compared to pathfinders classes.That's a false statement. Have you played the class or run a game for someone playing it? It's a really fun class to play (my favourite in fact), but it's a one-trick pony with a ton of shortcomings and it's really, really not as overpowered in practice as it might seem on paper. It's behind the power curve for Pathfinder classes, though still a blast to play. It's honestly one of the pillars of 3.5 design, standing atop a veritable ocean of boring and mediocre classes.
"Broken" doesn't have to mean "overpowered." It can also mean "one-trick pony with a ton of shortcomings."
So it's a book with a lot of arcana that's been unearthed?
If only we could come up with a cool retro name for that...
"Broken" doesn't have to mean "overpowered." It can also mean "one-trick pony with a ton of shortcomings."yeah...but that class is broken... even compared to pathfinders classes.That's a false statement. Have you played the class or run a game for someone playing it? It's a really fun class to play (my favourite in fact), but it's a one-trick pony with a ton of shortcomings and it's really, really not as overpowered in practice as it might seem on paper. It's behind the power curve for Pathfinder classes, though still a blast to play. It's honestly one of the pillars of 3.5 design, standing atop a veritable ocean of boring and mediocre classes.
Do you honestly think that's what the poster meant?
That also pretty much describes the fighter. Though it's less that the class in general is a one trick pony, and more that characters that are members of the class are one trick ponies.
That also pretty much describes the fighter. Though it's less that the class in general is a one trick pony, and more that characters that are members of the class are one trick ponies.
The fighter is also intentionally the simplest class and the easiest one to play. It's also pretty obvious to anyone, even new gamers and non-gamers, what the fighter's role is in the game and what they should be doing in the game. It's even in their class's name.
The fireball spell is a one-trick pony with no finesse or versatility, but there's a good reason it's in the game. But just because there are reasons for it to be in the game doesn't mean we should have other one-trick pony spells at the same power level, that would be boring and lazy game design.
|
Creative Director
|
Do you honestly think that's what the poster meant?"Broken" doesn't have to mean "overpowered." It can also mean "one-trick pony with a ton of shortcomings."yeah...but that class is broken... even compared to pathfinders classes.That's a false statement. Have you played the class or run a game for someone playing it? It's a really fun class to play (my favourite in fact), but it's a one-trick pony with a ton of shortcomings and it's really, really not as overpowered in practice as it might seem on paper. It's behind the power curve for Pathfinder classes, though still a blast to play. It's honestly one of the pillars of 3.5 design, standing atop a veritable ocean of boring and mediocre classes.
Would my answer to that honestly change the fundamental truth that a class can be broken by being too powerful OR not powerful enough?
|
|
Okay, we get that the point of Magus is to replace Duskblade. And I get that the name of the class is nailed down. But perhaps there is still time to change the name of the book? You guys are probably most creative bunch in the industry right now - is "ultimate" really your best? I think that you can do much better than that.
|
Creative Director
|
Okay, we get that the point of Magus is to replace Duskblade. And I get that the name of the class is nailed down. But perhaps there is still time to change the name of the book? You guys are probably most creative bunch in the industry right now - is "ultimate" really your best? I think that you can do much better than that.
Could be we chose the word "ultimate" for specific reasons, of course.
Could be we chose the word "ultimate" for specific reasons, of course.
They're in league with Hero! Some tell Court Fool!!! ;)
|
|
Okay, we get that the point of Magus is to replace Duskblade. And I get that the name of the class is nailed down. But perhaps there is still time to change the name of the book? You guys are probably most creative bunch in the industry right now - is "ultimate" really your best? I think that you can do much better than that.Could be we chose the word "ultimate" for specific reasons, of course.
Well, yes. I suppose so. I've been very rarely disappointed in your products, so I'm gonna give it a benefit of the doubt, but it just sounds so... adolescent, I suppose. Don't get me wrong - I don't want to be confrontational or insulting or anything. It's just that the name simply stands out from your other products. But that's just me, of course.
Okay, we get that the point of Magus is to replace Duskblade. And I get that the name of the class is nailed down. But perhaps there is still time to change the name of the book? You guys are probably most creative bunch in the industry right now - is "ultimate" really your best? I think that you can do much better than that.Could be we chose the word "ultimate" for specific reasons, of course.
I have to say, it makes me think of Marvel Comics.</unsolicited opinion>
I have to say, it makes me think of Marvel Comics.</unsolicited opinion>
That too.
I have to say, it makes me think of Marvel Comics.</unsolicited opinion>
And that's bad how exactly?
Why I do not like the books name, we do not know every reason why it was named that. The good folks at paizo do this for a living folks and some of em have been doing it a long time. They have to look at things from angles we don't even see so , while I am not in love with the name I do believe they chose one that works for the reasons they need it to.
Could be we chose the word "ultimate" for specific reasons, of course.
Hopefully not because it is your last book on the subject.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Okay, we get that the point of Magus is to replace Duskblade. And I get that the name of the class is nailed down. But perhaps there is still time to change the name of the book? You guys are probably most creative bunch in the industry right now - is "ultimate" really your best? I think that you can do much better than that.Could be we chose the word "ultimate" for specific reasons, of course.
Because you were worried people wouldn't understand what penultimate means and would come here crying and whinging about it?
Wait...that's something else altogether...
The name of the book isn't super important to me. As long as what is in-between the covers is awesome, I'll be happy. :)
Magus- I'd like to see: bard spell progression, interesting special abilities, and maybe an ability like the monk that boosts BAB to full but only in specific times/circumstances.
I'm pretty sure the Magus (Awesome name by the way :)) will be a Full Bab character with spells like the ranger or paladin.
I just want to stab and blast things.
I just want to stab and blast things.
"The job offer still stands. Just so ya know."
They had initially indicated that the APG would have the Templar which was a Paladin of any non-LG or CE alignment. I heard it got cut from the APG. Any chance for it here? Paladins use magic no?
Sorry for the threadjack, but can someone confirm this? I'll be honest: the biggest initial draw for me for the APG was something along these lines (the Templar I mean). Though I'm sure I'll enjoy the new classes too.
Somewhat on topic: I didn't take place in the rename the gish thread b/c I thought the starting rules made no sense. It's too late to "vote", but linguistically speaking, "spellthane" was a perfect choice. The "thane" compound draws to mind a historical man-at-arms, which then...you get the picture.
Fully on topic: the "words of power" concept gave me false hope, perhaps, that we'd be seeing Paizo's take on Truename magic, which is such an obvious choice for an alternate magic system. I know the Tome of Magic class was underwhelming and is likely closed content to boot, but the concept is one I'm fascinated w/. YMMV.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
My first thought was that Ultimate Magic with a class called the Magus was a reference to the complete mage prestige class Ultimate Magus that was designed for sorcerer/wizard multi-class characters.
Ultimate Magic also makes me think of Real Ultimate Power
advance player's grimoire
sounds alot better than ultimate magic.
|
Creative Director
|
The templar did indeed get cut. After Jason did the work on the antipaladin, then tried to make yet another version of the paladin, he came to the conclusion that there really WASN'T a way to make a Templar work without it basically just looking like a fighter.
And for what it's worth, I agree. The more variant paladins that exist, the less special the actual paladin feels. And that's a shame.
Spellthane, by the way, is not a good class name because it's a combination of two words. That's something that NO other base class does, and we're not about to break that rule now.
personally I hope the Magus is more like the Runeblade than the Duskblade
What are the mechanics/features of the Runeblade? I know the runeblade is a class by Monte Cook, but since it isn't allowed in the games I play I haven't bought the book.
At the banquet, Erik said that the UM book would include JB designing a magic system called "words of power" that revolved around "building spells on the fly" or something of the sort. How it would work, who knows?
This sounds awesome! I hope they do an open play test with this new system as well as the Magus.
My first thought was that Ultimate Magic with a class called the Magus was a reference to the complete mage prestige class Ultimate Magus that was designed for sorcerer/wizard multi-class characters.
Mine was that the name indicated that this would be THE book for spellcasters, and that there wouldn't be another THE book every other year. But maybe that's just me...
the issues with a half caster is no spells till 4th. Which I am ok with but many of the arcane warrior types want magic at level 1
|
The templar did indeed get cut. After Jason did the work on the antipaladin, then tried to make yet another version of the paladin, he came to the conclusion that there really WASN'T a way to make a Templar work without it basically just looking like a fighter.
Agh, that's too bad, I was really looking forward to that.
I'd more like to see a kind of arcane ranger. Full BaB, limited to light armor, 6 skill points per level, spells limited to level 4 and limited selection, familiar as Wizard -3. That kinda thing.
I did make a class like that a while ago, which you can find here for anyone that's interested, as well as an arcane trickster-esque base class.
|
|
I don't think being a one-trick pony was a shortcoming of the duskblade. I believe it was intentional and healthy for the class as a whole. There's a lot of strength in versatility, but it would make for a really boring game if every character was broad and versatile, an entire adventuring party of jacks-of-all-trades. There's still a place for highly focused characters, even if (in line with other Pathfinder classes) the choice on how to focus that character ultimately rests with the player.
I honestly think it would be a mistake to make an arcane warrior too broad or versatile for exactly the reasons that so many people believe the archetype to be munchkin territory in the first place. We have broad arcane casters. They're called wizards. If we took the wizard and gave it good weapon and armour proficiencies and the ability to reliably hit, we'd have a god on our hands, and I'm frankly sick of the notion that this archetype is inherently over-powered. The power level is most reliably brought down by focusing the class to the exclusion of other areas of strength. You want a class that reliably stabs things magically, and buffs a bit most likely, but you shouldn't want much else.
To that end, I do really, really hope we wind up with a full BAB class who is proficient in all armours (even if it can't ignore ASF in heavier armours) and martial weapons, who has casting ability right from level 1. For people who want to play quick, dextrous, lightly-armoured, medium BAB types, we already have the bard, the summoner, and the alchemist. There's a lot you can do with any of the three of them toward making this archetype work (though it's true that none of them really stabs anything terribly magically). And as much as I love the idea of an arcane ranger (and I have a special place in my heart for the hexblade), realistically, who thinks of the ranger or paladin as casters? They're just not casty enough to fill the core niche of a class like this. The class could get away with the bard spell progression (though I honestly think fewer spells known and more spells/day would make a lot of good sense as changes to that progression), but I think that progression should go on a fightier frame.
In closing, bard not fighty enough, ranger not casty enough. This class would, in my opinion, be most awesome if it fell somewhere in between.
I just want to stab and blast things."The job offer still stands. Just so ya know."
What does it entail again? I'm not in it for the XP or GP, I just want to stab and blast things.
What does it entail again? I'm not in it for the XP or GP, I just want to stab and blast things.I just want to stab and blast things."The job offer still stands. Just so ya know."
"Pretty much Stabbing things and making them die in painfully flashy ways. That and you get a niffty templet, nice health insurance {kinda} and I'll even forge ya an unholy blade of some sort to help in the stabbery "