I really like the channeling spells ability and I think that is a must for this type of class, how about in addition, maybe the ability to imbue your weapon with some of the magical qualities available to be placed on weapons...confusingly worded so let me try to explain: for x round/times per day jimbob the magus can mimic these +1 magic weapon properties (be it flaming or shocking or what have you) and the ability could increase through the ranks as you grew in levels. Wouldn't have to be one particular weapon you have formed a bond with because the power comes from you.
Obviously not all of the magical properties should be available (though it doesn't have to just be the elemental ones). Just something I thought was a cool idea. Then you get your spells but also little things you can do when you run out of spells or don't want to do something major, just a small boost. heck maybe at higher levels you could even start adding magical armor and shield properties but who knows...
re: imbuing weapon- I'd be open to that IF it worked
"To gain a +1 equivalent (enhancement or special ability) you must sacrifice a spell slot of twice that level, which gives you the bonus for a number of minutes = to the level of the spell sacrificed"
This way, they'd get to enchant their weapons ~ 4th level, it scales with their caster abilities, and allows for some flexibility on damage type/energy/etc. And it lasts long enough to be viable in closely packed encounters.
And OP, you are a very naughty boy :)
|
My wishlist:
* d10/full BAB
* spells from 1st-level onward (though I couldn't care less whether or not they reach above 4th-level... I'd be surprised to see anything other than bard spellcasting progression, but I'm still hopeful that Paizo will recognize the need for an entirely new spell progression for a class like this)
* heavy armour proficiency (though not necessarily without ASF above light or medium)
* the ability to viably combine spellcasting with swordplay, not just have access to both
The magus will be VERY LIKELY to have:
Medium BAB progression
d8 Hit Dice
bard spellcasting progression (but obviously with a much different spell list)
I have nothing but love and respect for you and Paizo, James, but I'm begging you to reconsider on this issue! We have loads of d8/.75 BAB/bard-casting classes already and none of them is really enough of a warrior. Consider the closest Pathfinder analogs: eldritch knight and cleric.
The cleric gets 9 levels of spellcasting by 20th level and medium BAB/d8, which is justified by its access to a more specialized spell list.
The eldritch knight, on the other hand, gets either (if you take your post-EK levels in fighter) +17 BAB (better than bard progression), 7th-level spells (again, better than bard), and an average of d9 hit dice (still better); or (if you take your post-EK levels in wizard) +16 BAB (STILL better than the bard progression), 9th-level spells (ditto), and an average of d8.2 hit dice (incredibly, still better).
Now, the cleric's better stats may be justified by a more specialized spell list, but the EK's certainly aren't. The EK gets exactly the same list as the wizard and still winds up with slightly better than d8/medium BAB and gets a CL 18 and 9th-level spells. Both of these seem to be pointing at medium BAB/d8 + full casting, which could be one fair take on the class, but honestly the class is going to need a limited spell list (since its features will presumably be more interesting than the eldritch knight's) and that limited spell list is almost certainly going to take the class out of the wizard's seat and put it into the fighter's, almost out of necessity. Medium BAB and full casting don't seem like a great replacement for a fighter, so I'd suggest a power flip-flop resulting in full BAB and medium casting. The combination has never been tried in Pathfinder before, but I'm certain most people will tell you that the top three levels of spells are more powerful than +5 BAB and 10 extra hit points, and that's the honest to god trade-off between the cleric and this proposal.
I really think you all should consider it carefully against the real alternatives available so far. The bard's frame is not what people want out of a class like this and feels really uninspired for the magus. Hell, I would take a battle oracle over a bard for a concept like this (without even thinking twice), and I hate divine casting for this concept. And come on, do you really want the eldritch knight to outshine this class? You're Paizo! You're 20-level base class people!
(As for stepping on the eldritch knight's toes, there's no chance the magus will have a class spell list as powerful as the wizard's... the eldritch knight will be there as it always has for someone who wants to play a wizard who can fight if necessary, and not for the people who want to play a fighter who fights using spells.)
We also don't want the magus to be equal to a fighter in basic fighting power or equal to a wizard in basic spellcasting power... once the magus is done, both the fighter and the wizard HAVE to remain viable options. If we build the magus so that there's no point to ever playing a fighter or a wizard, then we have a net LOSS of class options and that's no good.
This seems like a non-issue. If you make a class that fights worse than the fighter AND casts worse than the wizard, you won't have decreased the number of class options available but you won't have increased it either. Feeling irrelevant is the number one concern of the arcane warrior player, and too many of the options (coughbardcough) available to that player currently do leave the player feeling irrelevant.
What you don't want to do is outshine either the wizard or the fighter, but there should be no concern about equaling one or the other. Really, a seat needs to be picked (fighter or wizard) and care needs to be given to ensure that the magus can sit in that single seat (but not both). My personal preference is that it be able to sit in the fighter's seat. That isn't to say that I want you to make the fighter, and then add spells to it. That is to say I want a class that fights as well as the fighter, but does it with spells rather than feats. Are you worried that the barbarian, paladin, or ranger make the fighter unplayable? They all have the fighter's frame and primarily they fight. They just fight in different ways than the fighter. And that's what the magus should seek to do.
You can very realistically replace bonus feats and fighter class abilities with limited spellcasting and different class abilities without throwing off game balance or making the fighter seem any less attractive. Realistically, someone who wants to play a fighter doesn't want to be slinging around spells. And to be perfectly frank, someone who wants to play a fighter who does sling around spells doesn't want to suck at both. Sucking at two things just isn't balanced with being good at one.
A more suitable name could be warlock, but I'm sure that Paizo has already considered that and discarded it for whatever reason. For one, it's associated with the 3.5 class, and also for some the name for male witches.
I just want to point out yet again a warlock is not a male witch. A male witch is called and a witch. A warlock is an oath breaker and tradtor not a male witch
Sorry pet peeve of mine
The inquisitor is a good example of how the bard-frame would work, though, isn't it? Class abilities that bring the combat stats up closer to full BAB levels, with spellcasting that supplements but isn't really the focus of the character.
|
|
The inquisitor is a good example of how the bard-frame would work, though, isn't it? Class abilities that bring the combat stats up closer to full BAB levels, with spellcasting that supplements but isn't really the focus of the character.
Yeah, but we have it already. We have bards who sing to hit harder, inquisitors who judge to hit harder, and alchemists who drink mutagens to hit harder. Why can't we have a magus that just hits hard anyway?
Yeah, but we have it already. We have bards who sing to hit harder, inquisitors who judge to hit harder, and alchemists who drink mutagens to hit harder. Why can't we have a magus that just hits hard anyway?
At a guess - and it's just exactly that - because it doesn't leave enough room for the spellcasting. (I should note that I'm not saying I think that; I'm just speculating about the Paizo team's assessment.) The spells wind up either getting sidelined entirely for fear of overpowering the fighter or relegated to purely utility stuff, meaning that the class doesn't feel sufficiently like a caster.
Bards, inquisitors and alchemists really don't play much like one another (though I'm suspicious of the reports from PaizoCon about what has changed in the inquisitor); as long as the magus plays differently as well, I'm not too concerned about the base chassis.
I have nothing but love and respect for you and Paizo, James, but I'm begging you to reconsider on this issue! We have loads of d8/.75 BAB/bard-casting classes already and none of them is really enough of a warrior.
While I thought the [d8, BAB3/4, Bard casting] was the way to go, I must admit that your arguments make me wonder now, Benn...
My only wish for the Magus is that it uses the new magic system mentioned in the book and not the stanard casting system the other casters have. That would ensure it remains a different class than any of the other casters, or than an eldritch knight multi-class build, or a bard for that matter.
+1
This would be awesome!
I just want to point out yet again a warlock is not a male witch. A male witch is called and a witch. A warlock is an oath breaker and tradtor not a male witch
Sorry pet peeve of mine
Actually, there is pretty convincing evidence among many ethnologists and linguists that "warlock" does not come from "waerloga" which means "oath breaker", as it does not meet any of the rules for language drift, or match the context of it's usage in old text.
It is more likely that it comes from "vardlokkur" which would roughly translate as "spirit singer" and does match both language drift and it's contextual usage in old text.
Honestly, I like the idea of using bard as a base(ie. HD, BAB, Spell Progression) and developing different themes, like the Oracle.
Make a Tanker theme where they could wear heavy armor and have lots of self buffs(like using glyphs and runes, it would be funny to have an explosive rune on yourself, or put it on your weapon)
Make a striker theme that could channel through their weapon or burn spells for modifiers, although I am generally against most channeling if it is restricted to bard progression it might not be too bad. (Sorry images of guy with ring of fire resistance channeling a fireball, just dumb)
Possibly a ranged zapper, but this can be pretty easily made with the AA or a Sorceror, maybe a ray specialist...
The tactician role I see as easily filled by the EK.
Honestly, I like the idea of using bard as a base(ie. HD, BAB, Spell Progression) and developing different themes, like the Oracle.
Torinath, you should check out Anburaid's Weirbrand while you're waiting. It is definitely a "choose your theme" gi— er... Magus-like class. Doesn't out-cast the wizard, but has some really cool style.
You know what would be cool? If the names from the thread looking for the name of the class were used for various kits like those of the other arcanists (bloodlines, schools). Something like...
Warder - protection and rune magic
Dragoon - mobility, self-boosts
Stabracadabra - elemental blasting
I think the magus is better or just as good as any of the other options given.
And it also reminds me of Chrono Trigger so it gets points for that too.
I am happy to with a Magus getting a 3/4 base attack progression along with something like a bard's spell progression. In my mind, that gives them more room to get power through class abilities than just being a sack of BAB attached to a spell list. I think the alchemist and inquisitor pull it off without me considering them non-fighters because of their interesting class abilities along with their spells and I expect the same from the magus.
So go Magus!
First off, BARDS KICK ASS! Anyone who thinks they suck in melee is in for a rude awakening.
The "problem" with bards is the flavor of basing so many class abilities off the perform skill, and the bardic knowledge stuff. It almost forces the character to be a dandy. Trade the performance and skill based parts of the class for some direct fighting/casting boosts, and you have a great fighting caster base class.
I would rather the Magus be a 3/4 BAB class with lots of funky abilities rather then full BAB with a bonus feat every 5 levels. Also, good fort and will saves, bad reflex seems obvious. 2 skills/level if Int based, 4 skills/level if Cha based. I don't see a reason this class couldn't choose between Int and Cha as casting stat.
I also want to put in my vote for just using the sor/wiz spell lists. If you want to have some kind of school limit, or some other general limit, that is fine, but not a whole separate spell list.
Just a thought for a magus class ability: When you cast a spell that targets another creature, you can choose to charge the spell into your weapon. (The casting of the spell and charging the weapon takes a standard action, you cannot use this with spells that take more then a standard action to cast.) You can then make an attack as a standard action. If you hit, the spell is discharged, and the target is not allowed a save. If you miss the spell is discharged.
vvv Torinath vvv
That is probably a better idea. I would just include a line that requires the magus to wield the weapon in order to discharge the spell.
First off, BARDS KICK ASS! Anyone who thinks they suck in melee is in for a rude awakening.
The "problem" with bards is the flavor of basing so many class abilities off the perform skill, and the bardic knowledge stuff. It almost forces the character to be a dandy. Trade the performance and skill based parts of the class for some direct fighting/casting boosts, and you have a great fighting caster base class.
I would rather the Magus be a 3/4 BAB class with lots of funky abilities rather then full BAB with a bonus feat every 5 levels. Also, good fort and will saves, bad reflex seems obvious. 2 skills/level if Int based, 4 skills/level if Cha based. I don't see a reason this class couldn't choose between Int and Cha as casting stat.
I also want to put in my vote for just using the sor/wiz spell lists. If you want to have some kind of school limit, or some other general limit, that is fine, but not a whole separate spell list.
Just a thought for a magus class ability: When you cast a spell that targets another creature, you can choose to charge the spell into your weapon. (The casting of the spell and charging the weapon takes a standard action, you cannot use this with spells that take more then a standard action to cast.) You can then make an attack as a standard action. If you hit, the spell is discharged, and the target is not allowed a save. If you miss the spell is discharged.
That's pretty harsh man. I was thinking as an alternative to spell channeling at say 7th level a certain line of the Magus can treat one of his or her weapons as if it has the weapon property "Spell Storing". Basically same functionality as your idea, but they never lose the spell if they miss and the mechanic is already present in the current system.
|
|
For Pathfinder, we've linked d10 HD with full BAB. Breaking that rule isn't something we're interested in doing.We also don't want the magus to be equal to a fighter in basic fighting power or equal to a wizard in basic spellcasting power... once the magus is done, both the fighter and the wizard HAVE to remain viable options. If we build the magus so that there's no point to ever playing a fighter or a wizard, then we have a net LOSS of class options and that's no good.
Thank you.
Maintaining consistency in the rules is very much appreciated. I also appreciate the realization that introducing a new class affects the roles of the existing classes. Fighters should be the best at fighting and wizards should be the best at wizarding, period. Furthermore, existing classes that fulfill the archetype (eldritch knight) should not be made obsolete.
Also, I like the name. It immediately evokes an image of the strange and exotic. Magus is a loaded title, much more interesting than sword-mage but more identifying than duskblade.
I hope they arent just a fighter/wizard. I dont want it to throw fireballs around. But maybe it can light its weapon on fire to cause mucho damage
I think we will see something with it's on list but not just a fighter/mage combo. I think stuff like the inquisitor and alchemist are good signs they are not gonna do just a fighter/ mage. You can do that with the EK.
We're still several months away from actual revealing the magus class as part of a public playtest, but in order to manage expectations a bit right from the start...
The magus will be VERY LIKELY to have:
Medium BAB progression
d8 Hit Dice
bard spellcasting progression (but obviously with a much different spell list)
Pretty much exactly the frame I'd want this class built on.
I think we will see something with it's on list but not just a fighter/mage combo. I think stuff like the inquisitor and alchemist are good signs they are not gonna do just a fighter/ mage. You can do that with the EK.
from your mouth to Buhlman's ears
and yes, the inquisitor is a lot more than just a cleric/rogue
re: imbuing weapon- I'd be open to that IF it worked
"To gain a +1 equivalent (enhancement or special ability) you must sacrifice a spell slot of twice that level, which gives you the bonus for a number of minutes = to the level of the spell sacrificed"This way, they'd get to enchant their weapons ~ 4th level, it scales with their caster abilities, and allows for some flexibility on damage type/energy/etc. And it lasts long enough to be viable in closely packed encounters.
And OP, you are a very naughty boy :)
I haven't any idea what you are talking about :) I have to make sure the developers hear all my ideas so I can make a bad azz magus for one of your games. D12 hit dice, full spell progression, casting in heavy armor, spell channeling . . . these all sound like good ideas to you, right? :-D
I don't mind the name Magus per se, BUT one problem is how does that identify the Staff of the Magi or the Robes of the Archmagi ? These now sound like they work with that Class and not longer the Classes they were meant for. I see confusion on the horizon. Will these items be renamed ?
I want the fighter / caster balance to be a tool box, like building a summoner's eidolon. Spend points either for more melee ability or for more access to magic.
I love this idea! I think this could alleviate many of the issues that come up. They can spend points to boost aspects of their fighting they want to focus on. The problem with the magus is that everyone has a different idea how it should be played. However, The point buy makes the magus infinitely customizable, and should satisfy almost everyone.
+1!
If one feels it necessary the magus could get special abilities for using the staff of the magi and/or robes of the archmagi.
Ooooh, the lightbulb just went off over my head! Magus, tying into the Robes of the Archmage and similar items....
What if the 'Magus' class can 'drain' charges from magical items to gain spell-slots in return! The Magus becomes less a 'Eldrith Knight Wannabe' and instead becomes a Mystical Warrior! Able to adapt, shape and move magic in the environment, the Magus gains a number of spell-points in addition to their spell-list, although the two are completely separate! Spell list should cap out around 6th level and focus on Illusion, Transmutation, Divination and Abjuration (and possibly Conjuration, but not the Summon Monster spells) to empower both the Magus and his companions.
The Spell-Point system, however, enables the Magus to use X-amount of Spell-Points to cast additional spells per day, enhance their physical capabilities or even throw around pure arcane energy as a weapon itself, or even a ranged attack. The Magus can also drain charges from magical items like wands, or temporarily 'de-power' magical items without charges to replenish his Spell-Point Pool, meaning that the Magus can run up to the magically enhanced enemy, make a touch-attack, drain some of their defensive or offensive powers and strike back at them with that stolen power in a number of ways! Perhaps the Magus can even 'donate' that Spell-Point energy to a casting companion, granting them increases to DC, Range, Number of Targets or other modifiers by spending large amounts of Spell-Points.
What do you guys think?
For Pathfinder, we've linked d10 HD with full BAB. Breaking that rule isn't something we're interested in doing.
We also don't want the magus to be equal to a fighter in basic fighting power or equal to a wizard in basic spellcasting power... once the magus is done, both the fighter and the wizard HAVE to remain viable options. If we build the magus so that there's no point to ever playing a fighter or a wizard, then we have a net LOSS of class options and that's no good.
I understand not stepping on the toes of existing classes, and I would hate to see either wizards or fighters loose their party role. I enjoy playing both those classes and will continue to play them even when the Magus is an option. I just don't want to see the new class be weaker than the wizard/fighter/EK build that is already available. I'd like d10 hit dice because I think it would facilitate a toe-to-toe melee/mage class. But there are ways around this. The monk augments his ac and is ultra mobile which is one way to get around the low hit dice. There are probably really cool game mechanics that can provide the magus the ability to be viable in a fight.
However, I feel that without a spell channeling ability there is no point to the class. It has already been pointed out that there are melee/magic combinations available right now. What all of these lack is the ability to use magic while in a melee.As a Bard fan, i'd be very sad if the Magus got a D10 HD. Liking what i'm hearing so far about the Magus, will be very interested to see what class features wil be implemented... sacrificing spellslots and channeling a spell through a weapon feels overdone to me.
Im hoping Paizo will come up with something new and awesome...
Is there any reason that a magic class couldn't use constitution as it's spellcasting ability?
I mentioned in the Weirbrand thread that for a class that casts spells by channeling magic through runes branded into it's flesh using constitution makes sense from a fluff standpoint, and would make the character more survivable at higher levels.
I would like to see something like enchanting weapons and armor on the spot, that would be awesome. Spells like spell turning, trasnformation, antimagic field and such be it's bread and butter and stuff like that.
I would LOVE if the Iconic character had my name or a variant, Xumerius, Xumagus, Xumeroth or something, cause I deserve it :)
I think we will see something with it's on list but not just a fighter/mage combo. I think stuff like the inquisitor and alchemist are good signs they are not gonna do just a fighter/ mage. You can do that with the EK.No, you cannot. You can make a mage/fighter, but not a fighter/mage. A fighter/mage is exactly what I want to see. I thought that was the entire concept.
Really? If you can get 4 attacks due to BAB at level Twenty you are more a fighter than a mage mate. So, yeah you can do that with EK.
I'll agree Xum. It fits the classic fighter/mage. It may not be what optimizers want but it does fit.
Is there any reason that a magic class couldn't use constitution as it's spellcasting ability?
I have always kind of thought the sorcerer should be constution based not charisma
|
|
I'll agree Xum. It fits the classic fighter/mage. It may not be what optimizers want but it does fit.
It has nothing to do with optimization. The eldritch knight is a cool mash-up of two concepts, but it isn't any more than that. It's a little of part A and a little of part B, but there's nothing about it that feels like a cohesive arcane warrior that actually fights magically.
Also, to people citing the inquisitor, there's a huge difference between a +5 bonus to attack and +5 extra BAB. It's called iterative attacks. A class that fights magically is a fighter-type class and should have iterative attacks like a fighter. No amount of extra to-hit bonus will actually up its BAB.
Just felt like bringing in something for thought,
Iron Kingdoms not to be mistaken with Iron Heroes, was a system with a partial caster class called the gun mage, he had a gun it took a while to load and it was used to shoot people simple enough, he could spend an hour making fun bullets that could have spell energy put into them, this boosted his damage so cantrip adds 1d3, 1st d6, 2nd 2d6 and 3rd 3d6, he got bard progression and had d8 and 3.4 bab if I remember correctly.
anyways that is one way to go also those special bullets got boosts as he went up in level for magic enhancement.
it would be possibly something to use to instigate channeling spells through the weapon without having to cast the spells. Now of course we would have to revamp this around the idea that it would be melee and ranged weapons, but when I am building classes finding starting ground like this always helps.
Either way i am intrigued by this idea and I look forward to play testing it, running the numbers and crunching the numbers.
Spoiler:Ooooh, the lightbulb just went off over my head! Magus, tying into the Robes of the Archmage and similar items....What if the 'Magus' class can 'drain' charges from magical items to gain spell-slots in return! The Magus becomes less a 'Eldrith Knight Wannabe' and instead becomes a Mystical Warrior! Able to adapt, shape and move magic in the environment, the Magus gains a number of spell-points in addition to their spell-list, although the two are completely separate! Spell list should cap out around 6th level and focus on Illusion, Transmutation, Divination and Abjuration (and possibly Conjuration, but not the Summon Monster spells) to empower both the Magus and his companions.
The Spell-Point system, however, enables the Magus to use X-amount of Spell-Points to cast additional spells per day, enhance their physical capabilities or even throw around pure arcane energy as a weapon itself, or even a ranged attack. The Magus can also drain charges from magical items like wands, or temporarily 'de-power' magical items without charges to replenish his Spell-Point Pool, meaning that the Magus can run up to the magically enhanced enemy, make a touch-attack, drain some of their defensive or offensive powers and strike back at them with that stolen power in a number of ways! Perhaps the Magus can even 'donate' that Spell-Point energy to a casting companion, granting them increases to DC, Range, Number of Targets or other modifiers by spending large amounts of Spell-Points.
What do you guys think?
You sir, I like the way you think. It is fresh, and new, and I would ~LOVE~ to play something like that even as a test.
I was thinking something -- maybe a feat, maybe a class ability -- that let the Magus deal extra damage, but only after a number of strikes have been landed equal to the spell level intending to be sacrificed (or declared earlier?).
For Example: Magus' player wants to sacrifice a 4th level spell for damage. Magus' player declares, then attacks (would/should iterative attacks count?). Strike one, two, three-- four lands, and in addition to weapon damage, the spell effect goes off, dealing something like 4d6 arcane (or elemental) damage, with perhaps tricks able to be gained to change the damage to elemental, delay, or half the damage jumps to the next nearest target within 1/2 spell level x5 feet or something?
Thoughts?
I think the magus’ spells should have a very limited range. I don’t see the magus as a range caster since this role is filled by the wizard/sorcerer/EK. I think magic missile is the only range spell I want on the spell list giving the magus something less mundane than a bow when he needs to do some range damage. I’d like to see most of the magus’ magic be used while in close proximity, setting the class apart from all other caster types. I know this is a point of contention that people feel strongly about, but I’d like to see ALL the magus’ offensive spells delivered through her weapon or as AoE centered on/emanating from the magus. Additionally I think that the magus should be a “selfish” class, in that she would be incapable of using her buff spells on others.
The idea of rune/glyph magic appeals to me. I think it would be cool if the magus could apply glyphs to his arms, armor, and self burning the appropriate spell in the process. Then the glyph would lie dormant (till used or the magus gets eight hours of rest) until the magus activates it as a swift or move action. This would make it possible for the magus to buff up quickly and get into the fight. An example would be the magus applying shield to her armor before the group starts out for the day. When the party enters a fight she activates shield and charges into the fray. Given this ability I would limit the armor to light only, but allow multiple glyphs at higher levels. I think it would be very iconic for a magus-tank to be wearing a chain shirt but have blink and shield activated. An arcane vs. might solution to the same problem.
Don't forget that Arcane Archer is also a warrior/arcanist mix and that the Magus could be advanced via ranged route (just remember how popular is this option for a class that was hardly considered viable ranged fighter in 3.5, the Paladin).
|
Additionally I think that the magus should be a “selfish” class, in that she would be incapable of using her buff spells on others.
This is pretty much the niche the alchemist fills. A lot of overlap there.
I suggest that tossing fireballs is very much part of the gish concept. He shouldn't do it as well as a wizard but he should be able to cast offensive spells.
Additionally I think that the magus should be a “selfish” class, in that she would be incapable of using her buff spells on others.This is pretty much the niche the alchemist fills. A lot of overlap there.
I suggest that tossing fireballs is very much part of the gish concept. He shouldn't do it as well as a wizard but he should be able to cast offensive spells.
I agree with the casting of offensive spells, but I think they should be at melee range. If you want to cast offensive spells and swing the occasional sword I think the EK PrC is the way to go. I am hoping the difference between this and other paizo f/m-u options is that they are as good as fighter in a melee, just like a ranger or paladin can be.
James Jacobs wrote:
We also don't want the magus to be equal to a fighter in basic fighting power or equal to a wizard in basic spellcasting power... once the magus is done, both the fighter and the wizard HAVE to remain viable options. If we build the magus so that there's no point to ever playing a fighter or a wizard, then we have a net LOSS of class options and that's no good.
This seems like a non-issue. If you make a class that fights worse than the fighter AND casts worse than the wizard, you won't have decreased the number of class options available but you won't have increased it either. Feeling irrelevant is the number one concern of the arcane warrior player, and too many of the options (coughbardcough) available to that player currently do leave the player feeling irrelevant.
What you don't want to do is outshine either the wizard or the fighter, but there should be no concern about equaling one or the other. Really, a seat needs to be picked (fighter or wizard) and care needs to be given to ensure that the magus can sit in that single seat (but not both). My personal preference is that it be able to sit in the fighter's seat. That isn't to say that I want you to make the fighter, and then add spells to it. That is to say I want a class that fights as well as the fighter, but does it with spells rather than feats. Are you worried that the barbarian, paladin, or ranger make the fighter unplayable? They all have the fighter's frame and primarily they fight. They just fight in different ways than the fighter. And that's what the magus should seek to do.
You can very realistically replace bonus feats and fighter class abilities with limited spellcasting and different class abilities without throwing off game balance or making the fighter seem any less attractive. Realistically, someone who wants to play a fighter doesn't want to be slinging around spells. And to be perfectly frank, someone who wants to play a fighter who does sling around spells doesn't want to suck at both. Sucking at two things just isn't balanced with being good at one.
I totally agree with Benn! What I am looking for out of this class is a fighter who boosts his abilities via the arcane. The class won't get the reduction in armor penalties, the extra feats, and the weapon specializations, but at the end of the day I would like them to be exactly equal in effectiveness. I view the ranger, barbarian, and paladin all as being equal to the fighter just with a different flavor or method of getting things done. I would like the magus to fit this bill as well.