what if you allow the offensive spells but they have to be applied to something mundane to trigger, arrow, axe, big ol' rock, some guys fist, etc. add a little kinetic energy and ouch! that allows for spell versatility but still feels very caster/martial hybrid to me.
What about some kind of spellthief-like abilities, it could make them a little bit of a witch hunter, and allow them to restore their spell list. Maybe if you only get to steal spells (not spell-like abilities, etc.) but you can choose to put some negative effect on the caster when you steal from them, just an idea.
Things I WANT to see.
1. FULL BASE ATTACK BONUS
(This guy is a combatant, been trained that way, and act that way.)
2. Stab Magically
Things I do NOT want to see.
2. Spell Progression like a Paladain.
(I know you can get him/her spells from level 1)
2. Rouge/Cleric Base Attack
(We have this already for the most part, especially through various variants, and I hear the coming bard variants will basically do this as well.)
Here is the issue. Full BAB will tie it to half casting. That and we know it's Medium BAB with bard casting, which is honestly the best fit IMO
Here is the issue. Full BAB will tie it to half casting. That and we know it's Medium BAB with bard casting, which is honestly the best fit IMO
We do know that it will more than likely end up as 3/4 BAB with bard spell progression, because James has said as much. As for that being the best fit, there is at least a small minority that would disagree with you. There have been many posters saying that the want full BAB and d10 because that fits their idea of a f/m-u. I don't envy the developers when it comes to designing the magus. There are a lot of people that feel strongly about the role of this new class, and what it should look like. Obviously they won't be able to please us all. I hope they come up with something so unique and creative that when it comes time we'll forget about what we wanted to see from the class, and be excited try out what they have come up with. I'd still like to see d10, though :-D
A d10 is a warrior with a tiny bit of magic {see ranger}, a d8 is mixed fighting and magic and can pull off the "fighting" with ease. Folks have to make a call..caster or fighter if D10 your getting very little magic. You can have a mix but not everything at once. You want d10 then ya pretty much have o have 1/2 caster an no spells till level 4 as that is pretty much the set up we have.
Arcane is d8- bard casting or d6- wizard casting. If you make a d10 arcane class he will need to be limited like the ranger and paladin.
A D10 would be a half caster like the ranger and people would whine, hell people will whine anyhow if it's not better then a fighter and a wizard, so eh they will whine anyhow
A d10 is a warrior with a tiny bit of magic {see ranger}, a d8 is mixed fighting and magic and can pull off the "fighting" with ease. Folks have to make a call..caster or fighter if D10 your getting very little magic. You can have a mix but not everything at once. You want d10 then ya pretty much have o have 1/2 caster an no spells till level 4 as that is pretty much the set up we have.
Arcane is d8- bard casting or d6- wizard casting. If you make a d10 arcane class he will need to be limited like the ranger and paladin.
A D10 would be a half caster like the ranger and people would whine, hell people will whine anyhow if it's not better then a fighter and a wizard, so eh they will whine anyhow
Agreed people will whine regardless of what paizo ends up doing with the class. Some will say to powerful and that their fighter is now obsolete and others cry to weak cause the character isn't gestalt.
However, you can build a fighter/wizard/EK that has greater than d8 hit dice and better than 3/4 spell progression. Since that version of a f/m-u is already on the table I feel that if paizo is going to offer a new base class that it needs to be a new class. I am not really interested in an alternate version of the bard, and if the class is less effective in a melee then the EK is then why should I choose that class? Don't get me wrong it will be nice to start off as f/m-u and not have to multi-class into it.
Clerics are 3/4 BAB [b]FULL[/b} spell progression and I do not feel that they are broken (and I don't think the paizo variant cleric with d10 and full spell progression was broken either). I do not want the Magus to be modeled on the cleric, but neither do I want the Magus to be modeled on the bard just because that particular set up worked for that class. I see no reason why paizo can't break the mold with this class and offer up something different then any of the other classes. Why must it be 3/4 or 1/2 caster? Could we not see a d10 class that gets spells at level 1 but progresses slower than a bard and faster than a paladin?
|
A d10 is usually a warrior with a tiny bit of magic {see ranger}, a d8 is mixed fighting and magic and can pull off the "fighting" with ease. Folks have to make a call..caster or fighter if D10 you are usually getting very little magic. You can have a mix but not usually everything at once. You want d10 then ya usually pretty much have o have 1/2 caster an no spells till level 4 as that is pretty much the set up we usually have.
Arcane is d8- bard casting or d6- wizard casting. If you make a d10 arcane class he will usually need to be limited like the ranger and paladin.
A D10 usually would be a half caster like the ranger and people would whine, hell people will whine anyhow if it's not better then a fighter and a wizard, so eh they will whine anyhow
:)
You could start a spell progression like the paladin's or ranger's at 1st level. You'd just need to give them 0-level spells, which paladins and rangers do not get.
ah but it can't make the EK useless, so it wont be as strong caster wise as a F/W/EK beside you must work for EK you can't just start out as one. As for the cleric it does not have arcane spells and that can make a big difference power wise. I am willing to bet your not be seeing a base arcane class thats 3/4th BAB and full caster.
As for breaking the mold, why should they? they didn't with the AGP classes and if they are half caster with spels at level 1 you just made the ranger and paladin lesser because they should have spells at level 1 as well,
No fulL bab/ d10 classes should not have spells at level 1 as you just made it the most powerful level 1 class.
[
A D10 usually would be a half caster like the ranger and people would whine, hell people will whine anyhow if it's not better then a fighter and a wizard, so eh they will whine anyhow
:)
Nope Full BAB/D10 with abilities and spells is outright better then a fighter, ranger or paladin at level 1. There is no Usually to it.
ah but it can't make the EK useless, so it wont be as strong caster wise as a F/W/EK beside you must work for EK you can't just start out as one. As for the cleric it does not have arcane spells and that can make a big difference power wise. I am willing to bet your not be seeing a base arcane class thats 3/4th BAB and full caster.
As for breaking the mold, why should they? they didn't with the AGP classes and if they are half caster with spels at level 1 you just made the ranger and paladin lesser because they should have spells at level 1 as well,
No fulL bab/ d10 classes should not have spells at level 1 as you just made it the most powerful level 1 class.
Arcane spells are not the issue, what spells are on the spell list is.
As for making rangers or paladins lesser because they don't have spells at 1st level, the question would then be do they get other features that counter-balance the loss of 0-level spellcasting?
>Mr. Fishy throws out some munchkin flakes< Don't mind Mr. Fishy he's just here to check on the munchkin crop.
Good Call Mr fishy, good call
|
Agreed people will whine regardless of what paizo ends up doing with the class. Some will say to powerful and that their fighter is now obsolete and others cry to weak cause the character isn't gestalt.
However, you can build a fighter/wizard/EK that has greater than d8 hit dice and better than 3/4 spell progression. Since that version of a f/m-u is already on the table I feel that if paizo is going to offer a new base class that it needs to be a new class. I am not really interested in an alternate version of the bard, and if the class is less effective in a melee then the EK is then why should I choose that class? Don't get me wrong it will be nice to start off as f/m-u and not have to multi-class into it.
Clerics are 3/4 BAB FULL[/b} spell progression and I do not feel that they are broken (and I don't think the paizo variant cleric with d10 and full spell progression was broken either). I do not want the Magus to be modeled on the cleric, but neither do I want the Magus to be modeled on the bard just because that particular set up worked for that class. I see no reason why paizo can't break the mold with this class and offer up something different then any of the other classes. Why must it be 3/4 or 1/2 caster? Could we not see a d10...
Divine casting list =/= arcane spell list
What's appropriate for a divine caster isn't necessarily balanced with an arcane caster. Also, considering clerics are largely considered the most powerful class in the game I think you are aiming a bit high in comparing the class to the cleric.
As for being less effective in melee then the EK, the question is at what level? A 3/4 progression character is more effective in melee from levels 2-12. In fact given the fact that most 3/4 progression casters have armor they are probably more effective all the way to 16th level or so.
Ultimately if eldritch knight worked well this discussion wouldn't even be happening so I think it's a poor benchmark to use.
|
|
Arcane spells are not the issue, what spells are on the spell list is.
As for making rangers or paladins lesser because they don't have spells at 1st level, the question would then be do they get other features that counter-balance the loss of 0-level spellcasting?
Thanks pres man.
Seeker, Full BAB/d10 with half casting is NOT always better. If all you have is prestidigitation you are not better than a Fighter. You just keep your armor unsoiled.
You can't have your cake and eat it to. You get to be a melee class with a bit of magic and half caster like a ranger/paladin or you get to be a mix with Med BAB and bard casting. Ya can't have everything.
|
|
Arcane spells are not the issue, what spells are on the spell list is.
As for making rangers or paladins lesser because they don't have spells at 1st level, the question would then be do they get other features that counter-balance the loss of 0-level spellcasting?
Thanks pres man.
Seeker, Full BAB/d10 with half casting is NOT always better. If all you have is prestidigitation you are not better than a Fighter. You just keep your armor unsoiled.
I was under the impression that folks want the class to be good with magic though. Maybe I'm mistaken? We're back to that problem that the word Gish really doesn't mean anything now aren't we?
When I think of a 'gish' he's tossing fireballs when he's not swinging his sword. That's what gishes did.
You can't have your cake and eat it to. You get to be a melee class with a bit of magic and half caster like a ranger/paladin or you get to be a mix with Med BAB and bard casting. Ya can't have everything.
So paladins and rangers ONLY get BA and half caster, they get no other class abilities?
|
|
Except we're NOT having everything. Everything would be Full BAB/d12 HD/9th level spells with bonus feats every level and full Sneak Attack progression. Stop misrepresenting the opposition. Full BAB/d10 and 6th level spells is not unworkable so long as the spell list and class features are carefully constructed.
Edited for clarification.
YOU!!! Stop teasing the Munchkins they get all frothy.
No Mr. Fishy hates frothy munchkins they taste gamey.
Full BAB/d10 and 6th level spells is not unworkable so long as the spell list and class features are carefully constructed.
I do not agree.
Robert, why would ya want to limt your weapon option to only a dagger?
So a cross is any old item..like a tree or shield then then :) The term does not fit what your using it for a Athame is not a weapon. I could see it used just like a wizards focus as it is a tool but not as a weapon that makes hitting folks easier.
I could see it used just like a wizards focus as it is a tool but not as a weapon that makes hitting folks easier. Monte cook can be wrong like everyone else.
Kinda like using the word cross for a weapon. The term does not fit. I don't object to using the term I object to using it in a way that does not make a lick of sense.
Agreed people will whine regardless of what paizo ends up doing with the class. Some will say to powerful and that their fighter is now obsolete and others cry to weak cause the character isn't gestalt.
However, you can build a fighter/wizard/EK that has greater than d8 hit dice and better than 3/4 spell progression. Since that version of a f/m-u is already on the table I feel that if paizo is going to offer a new base class that it needs to be a new class. I am not really interested in an alternate version of the bard, and if the class is less effective in a melee then the EK is then why should I choose that class? Don't get me wrong it will be nice to start off as f/m-u and not have to multi-class into it.
Clerics are 3/4 BAB FULL[/b} spell progression and I do not feel that they are broken (and I don't think the paizo variant cleric with d10 and full spell progression was broken either). I do not want the Magus to be modeled on the cleric, but neither do I want the Magus to be modeled on the bard just because that particular set up worked for that class. I see no reason why paizo can't break the mold with this class and offer up something different then any of the other classes. Why must it be 3/4 or 1/2 caster? Could we not see a d10...
Divine casting list =/= arcane spell list
What's appropriate for a divine caster isn't necessarily balanced with an arcane caster. Also, considering clerics are largely considered the most powerful class in the game I think you are aiming a bit high in comparing the class to the cleric.
As for being less effective in melee then the EK, the question is at what level? A 3/4 progression character is more effective in melee from levels 2-12. In fact given the fact that most 3/4 progression casters have armor they are probably more effective all the way to 16th level or so.
Ultimately if eldritch knight worked well this discussion wouldn't even be happening so I think it's a poor benchmark to use.
Ok what about a druid? Same scenario 3/4 BAB d8 and 9 levels of spells. Between wild shape, natural spell, and their animal companion that can be one of the best melee classes in the games AND they have access to their entire spell list. But I don't see (and maybe I'm just not looking) anyone say they make the fighter class superfluous. I think d10/Full BAB and the bard spell progression with an extremely narrow spell list (and I would put restraints on how they could use their spells they would not be a ranged caster or group buffer) is no more broken then a fighter getting all those feats, a druid getting an animal companion, or a cleric getting nine levels of spells. I think if the magus had access to the wizard/sorcerer spell list in its entirety that that would break the class. But a class with access to a school or two is a one trick pony . . . just like the fighter . . . only different :)
I think it is clear that there is a d8 camp and a d10 camp with differing views and never the twain shall meet. I say we move past this onto more fluff and theme oriented discussions. From this point on I agree to disagree.
I think that customization and interesting story options are one of the really cool things about pathfnder. I love the sorcerer bloodlines, cavalier orders, customization of the summoner, and researches of the alchemist. I would love for paizo to continue the trend and come up with another unique class generation system, so that no two magi are the same. Given the differing view points on what a "magus" is or does maybe a way to build your magus to fill different roles. Orders with different spell lists, or training points to "buy" different class features. A way to focus this broad class into the varying archetypes that people have in mind.
Guys if your using the druid and the cleric as a bench mark I just don't know what to tell ya. Get ready to be disappointed is all I can say.
|
|
Terms are re-purposed all the time in fiction.
This is true. In the Everworld book series, the characters have a kick-@$$ non-magical throwing knife(not really, but "knife" is the easiest way for me to describe it) that they call "Excaliber".
Harry Potter doesn't pour over his spellbook every morning, Villians aren't the anti-heroes anymore, Mutants aren't just two-head baby cows or frogs with 9 legs anymore, Gnomes aren't just for travel agency commercials or gardens anymore than elves help out Santa, etc etc.
Guys if your using the druid and the cleric as a bench mark I just don't know what to tell ya. Get ready to be disappointed is all I can say.
I'm under no illusions as to what my chances of this happening are. James has told us what the starting point of the class is going to be. The whole idea of the original post was to put down things we'd like to see. I'd like to see d10. It isn't going to happen, but I can always dream, right?
|
|
Not to mention the glaive in Krull.
This is true. In the Everworld book series, the characters have a kick-@$$ non-magical throwing knife(not really, but "knife" is the easiest way for me to describe it) that they call "Excaliber".
Well if I'm not to mention it, you can understand why I didn't(plus I have no idea what you're talking about).
Can't forget this Excaliber, though many people wish they could... yech. He's still the strongest weapon, as you can see HERE starting at 8:50, but he's just too obnoxius for anyone to handle...
Guys if your using the druid and the cleric as a bench mark I just don't know what to tell ya. Get ready to be disappointed is all I can say.What if we went d10 and 5th level spells as a compromise?
IF I had a say, no. You could have 3/4th BAB bard casting or d10 half casting and a very small limited spell list. One or the other a arcane warrior or a guy who can kinda cast a bit at higher levels. Not both.
.
And I was just saying :)
I'm reasonably certain that the class could work with both a magus that cast spells like a bard along with a base attack bonus like a fighter or a bard (comparing it to existing combinations already in the game like the eldritch knight).
My preference for the bard base attack bonus comes from my belief that, in order to shoot for balance, a full base attack magus would receive minimal class abilities beyond spellcasting. I would rather have a class with more interesting and powerful class abilities than one that just has a better attack bonus.
|
|
IF I had a say, no. You could have 3/4th BAB bard casting or d10 half casting and a very small limited spell list. One or the other a arcane warrior or a guy who can kinda cast a bit at higher levels. Not both..
You know, I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that. I never had a problem with the 3.5 Paladin because of the spells, it was because of how the few class abilities did not really do anything to differentiate it from the Fighter. If the Magus has class abilities that make it feel like it blends magic and fighting, rather than being a fighter that can cast a couple spells, I'll probably be fine with it.
Kinda like using the word cross for a weapon. The term does not fit. I don't object to using the term I object to using it in a way that does not make a lick of sense.Crossbow? ;)
Pretty sure that's where the name comes from as it is a crossed bow. maybe not the holy cross but still. Another thing is alot of swords in the crusades had the straight guards do to wanting them to be cross like as well.
The point was Athame is a tool, not a weapon and labeling a magic weapon as one simply because it's magic, makes as much sense as labeling one a cross or a book or a candle for that matter.
|
|
The point was Athame is a tool, not a weapon and labeling a magic weapon as one simply because it's magic, makes as much sense as labeling one a cross or a book or a candle for that matter.
Any tool is a weapon. Intelligence(not even a physical thing) is one of the most dagerous tools. Point and Case: Wizards.
Nothing is stopping me from picking up an Athame and stabbing a foe with it, except an oath of non-violence if I can resist the instinct to defend myself..
And are you saying my +1 Dagger of Brilliant Energy can't be a candle?