First off, I am not lurking waiting for ya to post something so I can disagree with it. You posted something I disagreed. Honestly I can't recall what ya posted before or if I disagreed with it other then the subclass thing, which ya have said a few places and I disagree with it every tie anyone brings it up when they are talking about a total rework of a class.
A sub class, is still the class its a branch of. Hince the sub in sub class. Changing BAB changes the class framework, and well it's no longer the same class. "well its, the same class, except BAB, HD, spell progression and most of the ability had to be changed, but yep you can see its still the same class right?"
sorry no, the Anti-paladin is still clearly the very same class. What your proposing is not the same class or a sub class of that class. But a whole new class using the same name and some of the same abilities.
So yep, I'll disagree everything someone posts it.
Wonktheinsane proposed at least a partial fix in another thread. It at least fixes the usefulness of the class at low levels.
here it is
I do agree that the Magus should be versatile enough to offer a caster oriented, and a melee oriented build, or we need a variant of sorts, but I don't want BAB to be different. If that is the case just give them different names because that is really what they will be.
|
Changing BAB changes the class framework, and well it's no longer the same class. "well its, the same class, except BAB, HD, spell progression and most of the ability had to be changed, but yep you can see its still the same class right?"Except Pathfinder is backwards compatible, and 3.5 already has two variant classes that change the BAB of a core class:
The battle sorcerer (published by WotC) changed the sorcerer's BAB, HD, spell progression, and class features. Yet it is still a sorcerer, according to WotC, despite all of those changes.
And the holy warrior cleric (published by Paizo) changed the cleric's BAB, HD, and class features. Yet it is still a cleric, according to Paizo, despite all of those changes.
Granted, only one of those variant classes is balanced (hint: not the holy warrior). But there's already a precedent for variant classes using different BAB progressions. And, as I said earlier, there are already variants that use different spell progressions right there in the APG.
EDIT: Now, if you don't want class variants that change BAB, that's perfectly fine by me. I won't try to convince you that they're good. Just don't act as though there's some rule that class variants can't ever be allowed to change BAB or spell progressions, because they already can and already have.
Except that both were printed in 3.5, which design philosophy didn't marry BAB with HD.
In PFRPG, Paizo is pretty adamant about the BAB-HD link.
Ok, here is something more constructive out of me, for once.
Allow the magus to add his intelligence bonus to hit and damage when he uses his spellstrike ability. That would partially make up for his sub-par BAB and in his MAD problem as well. Right now spellstrike is kinda weak anyway.
I'd actually just let the Magus use Int as his modifier for to hit and damage with a one-handed weapon for all attack actions not just spellstrike. If you really want you could allow him to use Int as a modifier to AC as well.
That reduces his MAD significantly (he no longer needs to have a high strength or dex) gives him a solid boost at low levels but keeps him locked into the one-handed fighter concept that Jason seems to want to push with the design.
The only real problem I see is that it might need to be split over multiple levels in order to prevent Magus from becoming a dip class but honestly dip classes don't really bother me too much.
Int to hit and damage on every attack is a bad idea, it encourages dumping str for it's prime caster stat.
I have no issue with MAD, some classes should have it.
Personal I would like to see an option that allows the magus to use 2handers effectively, as well. I guess adding his Int bonus to all of his attacks would be warranted, but the reason I thought of adding it to spellstrike only was to make spellstrike more worthwhile.
Int to hit and damage on every attack is a bad idea, it encourages dumping str for it's prime caster stat.
I have no issue with MAD, some classes should have it.
I don't really have a problem with dumping strength (some people fight by poking sharp objects into weak points rather than cleaving through foes).
Honestly it's not really that unbalanced for a variety of reasons. They would be limited to one-handed weapons (like a longsword) so they can't get the x1.5 modifier (you'd need to put text that makes it so that when they use the longsword in two hands they can't get the int bonus to damage) and they wouldn't be able to take advantage of power attack (pretty much a critical feat for pumping DPR) unless they still met the minimums of a strength 13 (13 hardly being a dump stat unless you are going with a ridiculous stat buy).
Int to hit and damage on every attack is a bad idea, it encourages dumping str for it's prime caster stat.
I have no issue with MAD, some classes should have it.
+1
I wouldn't be adverse to them getting the bonus when they used spellstrike, but its not really needed.
So it's October 4th, and I am assuming that by the time I get back home from work, the playtest will be about over....
Anyone know if we can expect an official updated version of the Magus ? or do we need to wait until the book is released ?
So it's October 4th, and I am assuming that by the time I get back home from work, the playtest will be about over....
Anyone know if we can expect an official updated version of the Magus ? or do we need to wait until the book is released ?
+1
In a way, I'd almost prefer having to wait for the book, so we can focus on the new spellcasting system instead of bickering over the new changes to the Magus.
if it goes like the others, both it and the system will most likely have a revision and a 2nd round of feedback.
if it goes like the others, both it and the system will most likely have a revision and a 2nd round of feedback.
+1
I sure hope so.....I'm playing a Magus in the campaign we start next weekend ;P
if it goes like the others, both it and the system will most likely have a revision and a 2nd round of feedback.
+1
I sure hope so.....I'm playing a Magus in the campaign we start next weekend ;P
I hope some of the uncivility displayed doesn't de-rail a further playtest of this class.
|
I hope some of the uncivility displayed doesn't de-rail a further playtest of this class.
if it goes like the others, both it and the system will most likely have a revision and a 2nd round of feedback.
+1
I sure hope so.....I'm playing a Magus in the campaign we start next weekend ;P
+1
I tried to stay out of the play test. Can't remember if I failed or not!
;)
|
|
I hope some of the uncivility displayed doesn't de-rail a further playtest of this class.
if it goes like the others, both it and the system will most likely have a revision and a 2nd round of feedback.
+1
I sure hope so.....I'm playing a Magus in the campaign we start next weekend ;P
Meh, we'll be fine. Nothing beats the Alpha/Beta Fighter threads ;-)
I don't know if this has been brought up but when using Spellstrike on a 18-20 weapon does the spell the crit on a 18-20 as well or how does it work seems a little overpowered to change spell crits?
|
It crits on the weapon crit range. It uses x2 at all times for the spell. It will not use the weapons multiplier. I have playtested a little and do not see this as overpowered. You are giving up a round of attacking to "charge" your weapon. The crit would be the only thing making up for that lost opportunity
It crits on the weapon crit range. It uses x2 at all times for the spell. It will not use the weapons multiplier. I have playtested a little and do not see this as overpowered. You are giving up a round of attacking to "charge" your weapon. The crit would be the only thing making up for that lost opportunityThe problem here is that it skews the balance between high crit multiplier weapons and wide threat range weapons.
I think that's a mistake.
-James
Is it skewing? I mean, look at all critical feats, all of them favor higher threat ranges.
You don't even need a better multiplier... A longsword does more damage than a scimitar over time and the shift is only -1 range and d6->d8 damage.
Is it skewing? I mean, look at all critical feats, all of them favor higher threat ranges.
Yep, and I disagree with them for that reason. Imho the critical feats should have more effect with higher multiplier weapons to be balanced.
It's bad enough that builds that dip into those feats get pressure for higher threat range weapons over higher multipliers... but now an entire class is pigeonholed into rapiers and scimitars!
-James
Well, with the current form it doesn't. Getting the spell on the same round it's cast tends to be more valuable than having a higher crit chance on it. Since you can't spam that all the time, you'll also not benefit from that many extra spell crits.
Also, if there's a reach 1h weapon out there, it will also be of some use for them.
I'll add my two electrum in here.
Give the Magus an option for the medium and heavy armor, some like a little flexibility in their movement, this way it stems away more from the Eldritch Knight.
In their place, I suggest the following:
Canny Defense (Ex): When wearing light armor or no armor, and not using a shield, a magus adds her Intelligence bonus (if any) level to her Armor Class as a dodge bonus while wielding a light or one-handed weapon. If a magus is caught flat-footed or otherwise denied her Dexterity bonus, she also loses this bonus.
Intuitive Strike (Ex): While wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon ad not wielding another weapon or shield in her off-hand, the magus may add her Intelligence bonus to hit and damage on melee attacks.
When making an intuitive strike, the magus cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield. A magus' precise strike only works against living creatures with discernible anatomies. Any creature that is immune to critical hits are also immune to a precise strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature from critical hits also protects a creature from an intuitive strike.
Has anyone considered a power to give the magus more swift actions? Maybe 3 + intell mod per day?
It crits on the weapon crit range. It uses x2 at all times for the spell. It will not use the weapons multiplier. I have playtested a little and do not see this as overpowered. You are giving up a round of attacking to "charge" your weapon. The crit would be the only thing making up for that lost opportunityThe problem here is that it skews the balance between high crit multiplier weapons and wide threat range weapons.
I think that's a mistake.
-James
Is it skewing? I mean, look at all critical feats, all of them favor higher threat ranges.
You don't even need a better multiplier... A longsword does more damage than a scimitar over time and the shift is only -1 range and d6->d8 damage.
Except those feats aren't really comparable. Here you are doing damage. A higher crit multiplier would benefit significantly.
Plus, those are feats. You are choosing to build your character to use them, not the other way around.
Right now we've got two, the Eldritch Knight and the Magus and they've got distinctive differences between them.
3, with the bard version in APG.
It crits on the weapon crit range. It uses x2 at all times for the spell. It will not use the weapons multiplier. I have playtested a little and do not see this as overpowered. You are giving up a round of attacking to "charge" your weapon. The crit would be the only thing making up for that lost opportunityThe problem here is that it skews the balance between high crit multiplier weapons and wide threat range weapons.
I think that's a mistake.
-James
Is it skewing? I mean, look at all critical feats, all of them favor higher threat ranges.
You don't even need a better multiplier... A longsword does more damage than a scimitar over time and the shift is only -1 range and d6->d8 damage.Except those feats aren't really comparable. Here you are doing damage. A higher crit multiplier would benefit significantly.
Plus, those are feats. You are choosing to build your character to use them, not the other way around.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand what you said. Nothing of what you said is related to the "skew balance towards higher crit ranges" which I talked about there.
Hm, I'm not sure I understand what you said. Nothing of what you said is related to the "skew balance towards higher crit ranges" which I talked about there.It crits on the weapon crit range. It uses x2 at all times for the spell. It will not use the weapons multiplier. I have playtested a little and do not see this as overpowered. You are giving up a round of attacking to "charge" your weapon. The crit would be the only thing making up for that lost opportunityThe problem here is that it skews the balance between high crit multiplier weapons and wide threat range weapons.
I think that's a mistake.
-James
Is it skewing? I mean, look at all critical feats, all of them favor higher threat ranges.
You don't even need a better multiplier... A longsword does more damage than a scimitar over time and the shift is only -1 range and d6->d8 damage.Except those feats aren't really comparable. Here you are doing damage. A higher crit multiplier would benefit significantly.
Plus, those are feats. You are choosing to build your character to use them, not the other way around.
The point was, it is the class ability that is influencing the design instead of personal preference influencing design. Allowing increased threat range of a weapon to affect spells but not the multiplier means a higher-threat range weapon is always a better weapon for a Magus - where the threat range is going to be used to be doubling a constant damage number. If you had a +15 to damage but could only double it by 2, are you going to take a 18-20/x2 weapon or a 20/x4 weapon? It's not going to influence those who care more about their character and optimization be damned, but their opinion doesn't matter because optimization be damned. They could and would gimp the most powerful class in the game to make a character. I'm not holding that against them, I am just making the point before the people inevitably get here and complaining about optimizers and classes don't have to be built for optimal choices. The fact is classes DO have to be built for optimal choices. Moreover, classes have to be built for MULTIPLE optimal choices or it is subpar design. In fact, I thought that was the ENTIRE point for adding extra options to classes lifted from the 3.5 SRD, but with every new class I am wondering where all the options went.
The most optimal Magus wields a Rapier or Scimitar with a Kukri and a Whip as backup weapons. Are there other choices? Yes. Are there other more or equally optimal choices? No and that's a problem.
As far as "high threat weapons are too few and too obvious better choices" go, the magi are indistinguishable from fighters with their "2handers are the best way to guarantee doing significant damage".
The only actual limitation of the class is the twf/2h disabling their central feature. A magus that doesn't build around a high threat weapon is no more limited than a fighter that is using sword&board or twf instead of a 2h.
What do you consider acceptable? A high threat weapon is an optimal option for the magus just like the more popular 2handers are optimal options for the fighter. However, without extensive support to dealing with critical hits, a high threat weapon doesn't beat other weapons, and that also applies to the magus given he will not pump every spell he can into his weapon unless he specifically builds around that.
As far as "high threat weapons are too few and too obvious better choices" go, the magi are indistinguishable from fighters with their "2handers are the best way to guarantee doing significant damage".
I'm sure it is, technically. But you still have the choice. You can do high-crit two-handers. Low-crit, high-range two-handers. Or you can pick any combination of any weapons you want using its massive feat allowance and the Fighter options given in the APG. A Greatsword isn't a good weapon for a trip optimized build. Nor a build optimized for defense. A Magus is a Magus. You are already pigeonholed if you want to use a major class feature. And then you are pigeonholed further by the fact spell damage doesn't multiply with the weapon. You can pick a Longsword but what do you gain over a Rapier for the Magus? Does it make you better at defense? At combat maneuvers? Extend your reach? It increases your non-static damage by an average of one point. But it decreases your chance of multiplying your spell damage by two. You are offered no benefits and only a detriment. It's even worse would things that crit only on 20.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
1) Their restrictive situation stems from not being able to use 2handers and twf.
2) The actual "they only have a couple good choices of usable weapons" is as much a problem for them as it is for the fighter, in that if you aren't actively optimizing them they are no better than the other weapons, thus leading me to ask whether or not that is even "unnaceptable" and thus a problem.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
1) Their restrictive situation stems from not being able to use 2handers and twf.
2) The actual "they only have a couple good choices of usable weapons" is as much a problem for them as it is for the fighter, in that if you aren't actively optimizing them they are no better than the other weapons, thus leading me to ask whether or not that is even "unnaceptable" and thus a problem.
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. The clear trade off between high threat range and high crit weapons is base damage. Higher crit weapons have higher base damage. Well, technically, there is a peak of medium crit, medium damage then it goes back down the hill again but I digress. The assumed tradeoff between high crit and high threat range is damage. You can either focus on doing lots of damage straight or trying to pull off crits as much as possible. Those are two, distinct builds. But the Magus narrows that down significantly by limiting to 1-handed weapons. Without feats, you are looking at, at best, 1d8 weapons. But the Magus' whole schtick is to deliver touch attack spells with your weapon. And since your chance of multiplying your spell damage is increased with having a high threat range weapon, you are ALWAYS better offer having a high-threat range weapon as opposed to a middle of the road weapon.
You know what I don't care about? The Fighter or the GENERAL design of how weapons are balanced because THAT is certainly not going to get fixed since it is built into the game design as a whole. This is about the Magus and its limitation to 1-handed weapons and the ability and subsequent limitation of channeling spells through a weapon. Perhaps you would like to narrow your disagreement to the forest instead of the trees?
|
The thing about an arcane warrior class built on the same base as the ranger and paladin (full BaB, 2 good saves, 1/2 casting, other specials) is that it's not something you can create in Pathfinder now in any way, shape or form.
We have many arcane / combat crossover classes, but none has full BaB available, and all are either focused on non combat spell lists or heavily wizard in flavor and gameplay. We have the bard, the alchemist, the summoner, the inquisitor all as 3/4 BaB, 3/4 spellcasting. Do we really need another with the difficult to balance and rather unflavorful ability to cast and fight in the same round? There is literally no combination of base classes, prestige classes and alternate class abilities that can create a paladin/ranger based arcane character.
You're not seeing big clamors for it anymore in this playtest forum because it has become clear that this glaring hole in the paizo base class line-up will not in any way be filled by the magus.
A class that uses arcane flavored abilities in a manner similar to the nature flavored abilities of the ranger or the divine flavored abilities of the paladin would a class I am very interested in playing. The magus, even if comepletely redesigned mechanically to be functional and useful in an average party, is not something I'm interested in, at all. If I buy the book, it will be in spite of the magus, not because of it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
i personally like the concept of the Magus.
As for spell combat, I like the idea but..
1) no somatic components= no need for a free hand. so if you memorize all still spells, go for that 2hander/bow
2) allow the offhand to not just be a spell, but maybe a wand as well.
magus arcana...
1) the usages need to be more than 1/day. either 1+int/day or 3+int/day
2) add a Weapon Intuition arcana- uses int instead of dex/str for tohit
3) one that increase spell crit range, crit multiplier, or both
The thing about an arcane warrior class built on the same base as the ranger and paladin (full BaB, 2 good saves, 1/2 casting, other specials) is that it's not something you can create in Pathfinder now in any way, shape or form.
I'm working on one for the house rules... Using Sheraviel (currently Fighter 5/Diviner 2, BAB +6, 1st level spells) as a base, she could be redesigned as follows:
I'll send you a copy when it's done.
|
|
Yeah, I've never played a character that was the arcane version of a paladin or ranger because it's never existed, but I've pretty much always created characters that searched for it.
Even though the "best" gish are supposed to have 9th level spells, I always opted for less spellcasting, more melee potential, because that's what I'm interested in.
I personally don't like the duskblade channeling thing - I don't want to shoot spells through my sword (thought a spell storing idea could be fun), I want to use magic to overcome obstacles or improve my fighting ability...then stab things with my sword. :)
In this archetype I don't use many higher level spells, even when they're available - all ofthe spell I like tend to be things like greater invisibility, mirror image, true strike, expeditious retreat, fly, shield, vampiric touch... About the only higher level spells I'm interested in for this character type are teleport, greater dispel and things like passwall or ethereal jaunt.
Yeah, I've never played a character that was the arcane version of a paladin or ranger because it's never existed, but I've pretty much always created characters that searched for it.
You should have played 1e! The elven fighter/magic-user was perfect for that. If your friends were like a 10th level thief, 10th level cleric, etc., you'd be something like a fighter 8/magic-user 8, (hp and attacks as an 8th level figher, spells as an 8th level magic-user) because of the way demihumans multiclassed and the way XP scaled.
I personally don't like the duskblade channeling thing - I don't want to shoot spells through my sword (thought a spell storing idea could be fun), I want to use magic to overcome obstacles or improve my fighting ability...then stab things with my sword. :)
I've made the spell channeling an option (one of the combat arcana), but you could just as easily ignore it in order to pick up a new fighter talent instead.
|
|
I personally don't like the duskblade channeling thing - I don't want to shoot spells through my sword (thought a spell storing idea could be fun), I want to use magic to overcome obstacles or improve my fighting ability...then stab things with my sword. :)I've made the spell channeling an option (one of the combat arcana), but you could just as easily ignore it in order to pick up a new fighter talent instead.
Yeah, I know it's a part of the archetype a lot of people like, but it's never something that especially appealed to me. Spell storing always fit that niche just fine in my opinion. I'd always put a vampiric touch in my glaive for my favorite fighter/mage character, and refill it after a fight if necessary.
I also tend to prefer defensive / guardian type stuff to offensive playing. Unfortunately, that's not really well supported in the rules - though a buffed arcane fighter can probably do it better than any other non-full caster character.
|
@ everyone crying that the Magus wont be what they hoped.
Get over it, they know better than you do. Their resume says so, and I could care less about how many spreadsheets you can whip up supporting how "not broken" a full BAB, 3/4 caster would be, they have this available to them as well. In addition they communally have over 100 hundred of years of experience in role-playing, and working in the business. These are debatably the best qualified people on the whole of the earth to be doing this.
If you are disappointed by the direction of the class, then don't play it. In fact don't even playtest it, because whining and calling the developers incompetent is not the purpose of the playtest. Figuring out what works, what feels wonky, what would be fun, and the flavor of the class IS what it is for. One other thing is important to remember, THEY LISTEN! If we have something that is REALLY worthwhile, (I'm looking at you arcana pool) they will implement it, or at LEAST test it.
We have been given a prototype version of a Mr. Potato-Head with a bucket full of pieces. It is our job to affix them and rearrange them and see what looks good, and what pieces are crummy and should be changed/removed. We don't get to make the base or the pieces, because paizo is inevitably the ones in control of producing it, marketing it, selling it, and having it make sense inside the context of its already established brand. We are the playtesters behind the two way glass, and for some reason people seem to think just because we can see the people on the other side of the window that we are now the ones in charge and are in a position to demand things. Personally I don't like the class the way it is set either up right now but I am looking forward to playing it, and critiquing it.
|
|
Get over it, they know better than you do.
I have my preferences, and I will remain polite but firm while expressing them. Paizo has allowed - nay, encouraged - people to discuss their product while it is under development - and if they want me to shut up, they can tell me to shut up.
If you don't like reading my opinions then stop reading them and get over it.
|
|
I have my preferences, and I will remain polite but firm while expressing them. Paizo has allowed - nay, encouraged - people to discuss their product while it is under development - and if they want me to shut up, they can tell me to shut up.
If you don't like reading my opinions then stop reading them and get over it.
Did I point you out in particular? No, I didn't. Your tone is dangerously close to being argumentative, and I don't remember telling anyone to shut-up.
Off Topic: Also, this conversation is very meta though isn't it?
You should have played 1e! The elven fighter/magic-user was perfect for that. If your friends were like a 10th level thief, 10th level cleric, etc., you'd be something like a fighter 8/magic-user 8, (hp and attacks as an 8th level figher, spells as an 8th level magic-user) because of the way demihumans multiclassed and the way XP scaled.
For the record, hp were averaged, not the better.
The better of each's saves though (and attacks, etc., like you mentioned).