|
The thing that needs to be changed in my opinion is conentrate:
Concentrate (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana can
reroll any concentration check he has just made with a +4
bonus. He must use this ability after the roll is made, but
before it is determined if the roll is a success. The magus
must take the second roll, even if it is worse. The magus
can use this ability once per day.
should be:
Concentrate (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana may reroll
any concentration check he has just made. Then he adds a +4
bonus to it. He must use this ability after the roll has
been made, but before it is determined if the roll is a
success. The magus can use this ability once per day.
this allows the magus to guarantee that he can cast a spell once per day, even if he is rolling horribly.
easter egg: this wording should even fit in the same text box as the original text.
The issue with reaching high level has nothing to do with this conversation.It very much does. The MAIN ABILITY of the class ONLY functions at higher levels which even APs don't go to, and even then only reliably when casting low level spells
Take a look at the Magus in this thread where I spent a decent amount of time constructing as build from 1 to 20, down to the choice of equipment. You'll see that the Magus has a guaranteed success at casting using Spell Combat with her highest level spells starting at level 12 (and her second highest level of spells is automatic starting at level 9--she could pull this off at 8, even, but I prioritised a Headband of Vast Intellect +2 pretty low, so she doesn't get one until level 10). Even as early as level 3, the sample Magus is 70% likely to cast her highest level spell successfully with Spell Combat.
Rather than just looking at the magus's chances to succeed in an attack and a casting in one round, let's look at how it averages over two rounds, then compare it to the case in which the magus attacks one round and casts a spell on the next round.
First I'm going to assume Str 18 and Int 16, and that the magus is 2nd level. He has a masterwork weapon and the Combat Casting feat (which I think should be a bonus feat at 1st level, but that's aside). We'll also assume that he's fighting something with AC 15 and casting a 1st level spell.
Using Spell Combat, he has a +2 to hit and a +7 to make his concentration check. That means that he has a 40% chance to his with his weapon (60% chance to miss) and a 55% chance to successfully cast his spell (45% chance to fail). Not great.
But what about over two rounds? He has a 36% chance to miss both attacks and about a 20% chance to fail with both spells. That means that his chance of hitting at least once is 64% (including a 16% chance of hitting twice), and his chance of casting a spell successfully at least once is about 80% (including about a 30% chance of casting two spells).
If he attacks one round, his bonus is +6, giving a 60% chance to hit. That's less than the 64% chance of hitting at least once when using Spell Combat for two rounds.
When it comes to the spell, it can be more tricky. It is not unreasonable to assume that he will still be in melee, so he could still be casting on the defensive. His concentration check will be at +9, giving a 65% chance of success, less than the 80% chance of casting at least one spell using Spell Combat for two round. It's not clear-cut, though, because he may be able to avoid having to cast on the defensive, and using Spell Combat for two rounds leaves open the possibility of two spell slots being wasted.
Nonetheless, I think this gives some better perspective. Spell Combat at low levels has some drawbacks, but not as bad as others have made out, I think. It seems balanced to me. Of...
I just ran some numbers on my own and came to the exact same conclusion. I have been an opponent of lvl 2 spell combat, but now I'm switching my oppinion. One of the other things you should consider is that if the spell is successful the first round, does the magus need to use spell combat the second? If you say no, then his numbers start to get significantly better using it. Monster ACs I found affect the usefulness of spell combat, but as long as they don't break 20 at lvl 2, I found spell combat coming out ahead. The same can be said for TWF or Rapid Shot, so I don't feel like it is a bad thing.
And I totally agree that that they should get combat casting as a bonus feat at first level. I think that fixes spell combat more than anything else.
The thing that needs to be changed in my opinion is conentrate:
Concentrate (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana can
reroll any concentration check he has just made with a +4
bonus. He must use this ability after the roll is made, but
before it is determined if the roll is a success. The magus
must take the second roll, even if it is worse. The magus
can use this ability once per day.
should be:
Concentrate (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana can
increase any concentration check he has just made with a +4
bonus. He must use this ability after the roll is made, but
before it is determined if the roll is a success. The magus
can use this ability once per day.
Interesting idea--in practice, however, I don't think it will change things much (and it actually makes it less likely to save your low roll, though it is never wasted).
Let's look at my Magus build for level 3, but assume she took Concentrate instead of Familiar at level 3. If she didn't use Spell Combat and was just normally casting defensively, she will automatically succeed with the +4, so the reroll is irrelevant.
If she was using Spell Combat, then she has six chances in twenty to fail her Concentration. On exactly four of those six chances, the new Concentration you suggest will make her automatically succeed, and in two, she just won't use it. So that's equivalent to getting a 66.6% chance of saving your failed check that isn't used up if it doesn't work.
With the original, no matter what she rolls, she gets a 90% chance to turn a failure into a success, but she loses the ability even if it doesn't work.
|
Hear, hear, Draco Caeruleus!
A magus isn't terrible, and he can reliably cast these spells defensively as soon as 6th level (reliably meaning low chance to fail, not no chance to fail).
It's not like you're going to save your biggest, most valuable spells for the spell combat. These are going to be your True Strikes and Shocking Grasps. Useful level 1 spells that really help you win in a combat. So it's hard to hit things at second level when you do two things at once.
Is this news to anybody? Is there anybody who didn't know that doing two things at once is harder in D&D than doing one thing only? I really hope not.
Seems to the big problem with Spell Combat is at the low levels. The -2 to Concentration isn't that bad on it's own but combined with the -4 to hit makes a really poor option to use. You'd be better off casting defensively with out the penalty or accepting the attack of opportunity hoping they miss. Since chances are you're going to miss with your attack anyways you lose nothing. This of course get better as you level up but does nothing for 2nd level.
So why bother giving this feature at 2nd level? It's not a bad feature just not good a 2nd level. Even changing it to 4th level make the ability better as you can take the Magic Arcana that gives you second roll for concentration once per day.
I posted this in my own play test thread that if a penalty is required then how about instead of -2 apply -1 per spell level. Or -0 for 1st and 0 level spells and -1 per spell level up to a -5 for 6th level spells. This way the 2nd level character or really anyone casting first level spells has better chance to do it. At higher level it would balance out and keep the risk there until the Capstone at 20th level is reached.
|
|
The thing that needs to be changed in my opinion is conentrate:
Concentrate (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana can
reroll any concentration check he has just made with a +4
bonus. He must use this ability after the roll is made, but
before it is determined if the roll is a success. The magus
must take the second roll, even if it is worse. The magus
can use this ability once per day.
should be:
Concentrate (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana can
increase any concentration check he has just made with a +4
bonus. He must use this ability after the roll is made, but
before it is determined if the roll is a success. The magus
can use this ability once per day.
Interesting idea--in practice, however, I don't think it will change things much (and it actually makes it less likely to save your low roll, though it is never wasted).
Let's look at my Magus build for level 3, but assume she took Concentrate instead of Familiar at level 3. If she didn't use Spell Combat and was just normally casting defensively, she will automatically succeed with the +4, so the reroll is irrelevant.
If she was using Spell Combat, then she has six chances in twenty to fail her Concentration. On exactly four of those six chances, the new Concentration you suggest will make her automatically succeed, and in two, she just won't use it. So that's equivalent to getting a 66.6% chance of saving your failed check that isn't used up if it doesn't work.
With the original, no matter what she rolls, she gets a 90% chance to turn a failure into a success, but she loses the ability even if it doesn't work.
I edited my post to say that instead of forcing a reroll it can just give +4, which allows that person to reroll if they roll low, or in the case that they rolled average and just need the boost add +4 without rerolling.
Concentrate (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana may reroll
any concentration check he has just made. Then he may add a
+4 bonus. He must use this ability after the roll is made,
but before it is determined if the roll is a success.
The magus must take the second roll, even if it is worse.
The magus can use this ability once per day.
One of the other things you should consider is that if the spell is successful the first round, does the magus need to use spell combat the second? If you say no, then his numbers start to get significantly better using it. Monster ACs I found affect the usefulness of spell combat, but as long as they don't break 20 at lvl 2, I found spell combat coming out ahead. The same can be said for TWF or Rapid Shot, so I don't feel like it is a bad thing.
Interesting. I`m convinced.
If anything, I think the Magus might like an ability such that if they DO fail a Concentration check, that they don`t lose the spell, it just fails to cast. That could even be a Feat, IMHO, given it`s pretty damn useful even in non-Spell Combat scenarios.
The thing that needs to be changed in my opinion is conentrate:
Concentrate (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana can
reroll any concentration check he has just made with a +4
bonus. He must use this ability after the roll is made, but
before it is determined if the roll is a success. The magus
must take the second roll, even if it is worse. The magus
can use this ability once per day.
should be:
Concentrate (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana can
increase any concentration check he has just made with a +4
bonus. He must use this ability after the roll is made, but
before it is determined if the roll is a success. The magus
can use this ability once per day.
Interesting idea--in practice, however, I don't think it will change things much (and it actually makes it less likely to save your low roll, though it is never wasted).
Let's look at my Magus build for level 3, but assume she took Concentrate instead of Familiar at level 3. If she didn't use Spell Combat and was just normally casting defensively, she will automatically succeed with the +4, so the reroll is irrelevant.
If she was using Spell Combat, then she has six chances in twenty to fail her Concentration. On exactly four of those six chances, the new Concentration you suggest will make her automatically succeed, and in two, she just won't use it. So that's equivalent to getting a 66.6% chance of saving your failed check that isn't used up if it doesn't work.
With the original, no matter what she rolls, she gets a 90% chance to turn a failure into a success, but she loses the ability even if it doesn't work.
I edited my post to say that instead of forcing a reroll it can just give +4, which allows that person to reroll if they roll low, or in the case that they rolled average and just need the boost add +4 without rerolling.
Concentrate (Ex): A magus with this magus arcana may reroll
any concentration check he has just made. Then he may add a
+4 bonus....
OK, now that's a definite help. It still doesn't matter either way at least for my sample Magus starting at level 8 because the +4 will make any roll an autosuccess at that point, but it will be a small but helpful boon throughout the levels the Magus needs it most.
One of the other things you should consider is that if the spell is successful the first round, does the magus need to use spell combat the second? If you say no, then his numbers start to get significantly better using it.
I hadn't thought of that, but it's a good point to consider. Especially if the first use of Spell Combat finishes the fight.
One of the other things you should consider is that if the spell is successful the first round, does the magus need to use spell combat the second? If you say no, then his numbers start to get significantly better using it. Monster ACs I found affect the usefulness of spell combat, but as long as they don't break 20 at lvl 2, I found spell combat coming out ahead. The same can be said for TWF or Rapid Shot, so I don't feel like it is a bad thing.Interesting. I`m convinced.
If anything, I think the Magus might like an ability such that if they DO fail a Concentration check, that they don`t lose the spell, it just fails to cast. That could even be a Feat, IMHO, given it`s pretty damn useful even in non-Spell Combat scenarios.
Yup, I did some math in a few other threads that match with Caineach's. As to your idea, that would be a powerful feat indeed--probably better as a Magus Arcana, I think (want to suggest it in the other thread for new arcana?).
|
|
actually looking back at my proposals for concentrate I think it should be worded like this:
Concentrate: A magus may succeed at a concentration
check made while using Spell Combat. A magus may
use this ability once per day.
Although... I think it would also need some downfall...
like:
Concentrate: A magus may succeed at a concentration
check made while using Spell Combat. After this
round the magus is fatigued. A magus may use this
ability once per day.
or some other downfall (-2 to the rest of concentration checks? -2 to will saves?)
actually looking back at my proposals for concentrate I think it should be worded like this:
Concentrate: A magus may succeed at a concentration
check made while using Spell Combat. A magus may
use this ability once per day.Although... I think it would also need some downfall...
like:
Concentrate: A magus may succeed at a concentration
check made while using Spell Combat. After this
round the magus is fatigued. A magus may use this
ability once per day.or some other downfall (-2 to the rest of concentration checks? -2 to will saves?)
Honestly, I don't think it would be too powerful if you just left it at autosuccess. After all, it's only once per day, and you're probably looking at the arcana becoming obsolete anyway around level 10-12 unless facing a foe with the Disruptive Feat. Granted, it's rather better than the current incarnation against just such a foe, but otherwise, the difference is small:
Let's consider your previous incarnation, where you can choose whether to reroll, then apply +4. Even at level 3, my sample Magus fails on six rolls of twenty. On four of those six, she keeps the roll, adds +4, and autosucceeds. On the other 2, she has a 90% chance of success. In total, then, the ability your proposed last time has 96.6% chance of turning a failure into a success already (the chance that it doesn't work is smaller than the chance of rolling a natural 1 on a d20). And the chances of it working usually stay even or get better (it has the same 96.6% chance to fix at level 5, then a 99% chance at level 6, then back to 96.6% at 7, back to 99% at 8, and 100% at level 9 and above).
]
There are concentration checks for casting during violent motion, and I would think that casting while making an attack on someone would qualify.
I think the conc check is for casting defensively with a penalty for casting during violent motion.
THIS!! the DC for casting with vigourous motion is 10 plus spell level
for violent motion it is 15 plus spell level.
so maybe a single attack could be considered vigorous were as multiple attacks due to high bab or haste would be considered violent motion.
this way we can keep the penalty, but also allow it to scale at the same time.
If you are going to crunch the numbers, I suggest build one with a 20 pt buy and test it as part of a party against, say, the out of the book encounters from the Kingmaker AP.
That said, on paper it appears as if the Magus is pretty weak. I showed it to the most experienced player in my gaming group, and his response was that he would never consider playing one. When one looks at the other 3/4 BAB classes they all seem to get more stuff, and be better in melee than the Magus is, even though that is his gimmick.
The Bard has a pile of skill points and very good buffing ability. If forced into melee the bard has bonuses to his attack rolls via spells and songs.
The Cleric has 9 levels of spells, including one that basically makes him a fighter for a combat if really needed. Except that he can still cast a pile of spells. The Oracle is much the same in this regard.
The Druid can shapechange if he needs combat bonuses, plus with the animal companion will always have a flanking partner. This also gives a pretty good action economy when you are controlling 2 or more things in an encounter.
The Monk uses full base attack bonuses for flurry of blows, basically increasing his chances to hit when using one of the primary class features.
The Rogue doesn't get a pile of bonuses, but can use their primary stat to attack via a feat (also available as a talent) plus does large amounts of bonus damage as many times per day as they can hit. The only expendable resource a rogue has is hit points.
The Inquisitor even gets bonuses to hit if he takes the right judgement.
The Summonerf even has action economy by having a second person helping him in the form the Eidolon. Although I think anything called the summoner shouldn't be outclassed at summoning by any other class, much less all the 9 level casters.
The Magus is the only 3/4 BAB class to have penalties using the class features. One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn't the same..............
I plan on doing just that, but with a PFS scenario so as not to spoil myself for Kingmaker. If you want to run it on KM, you can find my 20 PB Magus build from level 1-20 here.
Also, I love puns, and Summonerf as a pet name for the final APG Summoner is the coolest pun I've seen in the past few days, so intentional or not, hats off!
geeze ya go to sleep for 8 hours ;)
|
|
The Bard has a pile of skill points and very good buffing ability. If forced into melee the bard has bonuses to his attack rolls via spells and songs.
Except that the Magus Arcana's allow him to buff himself with bonus's to stuff on the fly, and that he can cast his buffs whilst still swinging at the enemy.
The Cleric has 9 levels of spells, including one that basically makes him a fighter for a combat if really needed. Except that he can still cast a pile of spells. The Oracle is much the same in this regard.
And the Magus can cast spells while fighting, and his spells are of the arcane variety, the more damaging kind, and he does quallify as a fighter at higher levels, allowing him to totally specialize in his weapon.
The Druid can shapechange if he needs combat bonuses, plus with the animal companion will always have a flanking partner. This also gives a pretty good action economy when you are controlling 2 or more things in an encounter.
Only he can't cast while using wild shape, unless he takes a feat, and his partner can be a very easy target. And the magus gets some of those exact spells at later levels (form of beast/dragon)
The Monk uses full base attack bonuses for flurry of blows, basically increasing his chances to hit when using one of the primary class features.
And the Magus can easily buff himself pre or during combat to help make up the difference and can sac spells to make sure he connects.
The Rogue doesn't get a pile of bonuses, but can use their primary stat to attack via a feat (also available as a talent) plus does large amounts of bonus damage as many times per day as they can hit. The only expendable resource a rogue has is hit points.
And the fact that the sneak attack has a requirement to use, and that spellstrike can use the same feat to increase attack. (A nimble dodging spellslinger anyone?) And without choosing specific feats and talents the rogue is incapable of buffing, whilst the magus can.
The Inquisitor even gets bonuses to hit if he takes the right judgement.
ARCANE ACCURACY, BONDED WEAPON
The Summoner even has action economy by having a second person helping him in the form the Eidolon. Although I think anything called the summoner shouldn't be outclassed at summoning by any other class, much less all the 9 level casters.
not going to get into the summoner debate...
A little something to consider when comparing spell combat to the barbarian's rage or the "ranger's" twf/rapid shot.
When a ranger uses two weapon fighting or rapid shot, he effectively gets a -4 penalty to STR or DEX for the purposes of making attack rolls. In return he gets another attack, which increases his damage output in pretty much every scenario.
When a barbarian uses rage he effectively gets a -4 penalty to DEX for the purposes of AC. In return he gains a +4 bonus to STR and CON. The net gain is +4 and is obviously an advantage in most scenarios. An interesting ability that's worthy of being the defining class feature.
When the Magus uses spell combat he effectively gets a -8 penalty to STR (or DEX) for the purposes of making attack rolls and a -4 penalty to INT for the purposes of casting defensively. In returns he (possibly) gets to cast a single spell that's not as powerful as those of dedicated casters. This is on top of the class having medium BAB. The situations where he'd benefit from using this ability in combat are so rare that he might as well not have it at all. And that's not what major class features are all about.
Caineach`s / Draco Caerulus` numbers seem to show that Spell Combat can in fact work out great for reasonable builds at low levels. So I don`t see the problem. If you take Combat Casting, you can make it work right away at low levels, which is where the only difficulty is, and if you don`t you can focus on something else but enjoy the benefits of Martial Weapons, Arcane Spellcasting in Armor, and Good Saves (of the best 2 types) right off the bat. Actually, that sounds perfect for a build NOT focusing on attack spells or worrying about DCs, but focusing spell-wise on buffs appled pre-combat/early combat out of melee. And if you like the option of full out melee + spell attacks, that`s fully available. If one build happens to require a Feat, I don`t think that`s really diverging too much from what is the case for other classes...
Let's consider this analysis--based on the penalties you mention, we're looking at levels 1-7 (since the penalties become 4 lower in the way you've expressed them at level 8). When we look at those levels in particular, we find that if the Magus casts a spell that doesn't include a save DC, then this:A little something to consider when comparing spell combat to the barbarian's rage or the "ranger's" twf/rapid shot.
When a ranger uses two weapon fighting or rapid shot, he effectively gets a -4 penalty to STR or DEX for the purposes of making attack rolls. In return he gets another attack, which increases his damage output in pretty much every scenario.
When a barbarian uses rage he effectively gets a -4 penalty to DEX for the purposes of AC. In return he gains a +4 bonus to STR and CON. The net gain is +4 and is obviously an advantage in most scenarios. An interesting ability that's worthy of being the defining class feature.
When the Magus uses spell combat he effectively gets a -8 penalty to STR (or DEX) for the purposes of making attack rolls and a -4 penalty to INT for the purposes of casting defensively. In returns he (possibly) gets to cast a single spell that's not as powerful as those of dedicated casters. This is on top of the class having medium BAB. The situations where he'd benefit from using this ability in combat are so rare that he might as well not have it at all. And that's not what major class features are all about.
gets to cast a single spell that's not as powerful as those of dedicated casters
is actually not really the case for a good number of those levels.
Compared to a Wizard, the Magus's best spells are the same at levels 1, 2, and 4, so 3 of those 7 levels. Compared to a Sorcerer, the Magus's best spells are actually the same at all levels except 6, so 6 of those 7 levels. Level 8 is the first level where the Sorcerer not only pulls ahead of the Magus but permanently stays ahead in spell level, and it's also the level where Spell Combat gets better. I think the design was intentional in that.
So since it's the level before 8 where even Sorcerers have the advantage, let's look at the math of level 6 for the Magus:
Assume that my sample Magus has a five round combat (she doesn't know how long it will be, but we do). She has to advance on the first round so just casts a prebuff (say Mirror Image maybe) or battlefield control (Web), and on the other four rounds, she is thinking of casting some spells and attacking. The fight is mildly tougher than average, so she would like to get off two spells more in this battle. Particularly, she wants to cast another 2nd and 1st level spell. Then she'll get as many attacks as she possibly can. She's considering either using Spell Combat or just casting the spells and attacking twice. If she casts the spells first, let's say that the enemies can't make her cast defensively through flanking or the like.
So if she just casts and then thwacks, she gets the two spells off automatically in the first two rounds, and then she makes two attacks. I'm going to give her group of foes standard Bestiary AC for a CR 6 encounter, which is 19. She thus will hit 70% of the time since she isn't using Spell Combat, for a total of 1.4 hits on average. Not bad.
Now with Spell Combat. Starting on the second round, she tries to Spell Combat in those two spells she wants until they work, while whacking. On the first round, she has a 75% chance of casting her 2nd-level spell, and only a 50% chance of hitting. On the second round, she may be trying another 2nd due to failure (25% chance), but otherwise she's Spell Combating in her 1st-level spell, which has an 85% chance of success, with another 50% hit chance. Now it gets a bit more complex--she has a 63.75% chance that both of her spells went off fine, so in that case, she attacks now regularly and has a 70% hit chance, but otherwise, she still needs to cast again, and has a 50% hit chance. Final round! There is almost a 90% chance that you are done casting by now, but there is still a 10.75% chance that you still need to do Spell Combat and take 50% hit chance with your attack. Otherwise, 70%.
So how many hits did the Spell Combat Magus get on average? 1 from the first two rounds, followed by 1.306 attacks on average from the following two rounds (factoring in every possible world). This is a grand total of 2.306 attacks, which is nearly an entire additional successful attack more than not using Spell Combat (I have to emphasise--an entire *successful* attack more is a lot better than getting to make another attack). In exchange, you less than a 2% chance that you didn't get off your spell after all that time, you have a 10.75% chance that you had to spend two extra spell slots (so about the chance of rolling a natural 1 or 2 on a d20), and you have a little more than a 1/3 chance that you even had to spend an extra slot at all for this benefit.
Of course, it gets much much better at level 8.
Hope these calculations do someone some good--they were fun to make!
It would help a lot if we knew something about the types of new touch spells that would be in Ultimate Magic.
For instance, say there is a 1st level touch spell that reduces your opponent's AC (straight penalty, or making him flatfooted, or making all your attacks against that opponent count as touch attacks, or similar). If there is such a spell, then the spell combat ability suddenly becomes much more worthwhile even at low levels.
But it DOES look worthwhile at low levels according to those numbers...
Only against extra high AC opponents might it be less effective... But I don`t think Fighters shy away from Power Attack at low levels because SOMETIMES they might not want to use it.
Somebody said the 1st (or earlier) rounds of combat are the most important (because you can finish it, gain positioning/conditioin advantage, etc). So for that very reason being able to bypass normal action economy and Cast AND get melee damage in is a VERY useful ability. Maybe it`s a BIT of a gamble, but so is Power Attacking on the first round at low levels, MAYBE you ensure your chances to 1-hit the enemy, but you also increase your chances to miss entirely... So what? Even without using the ability, the Magus has Martial Weapons, Arcane Spellcasting in Armor (pre-cast/cast without attacking simultaneously), and Good Saves (of the best 2 types) right off the bat. Sounds like a pretty good melee/caster `switch hitter` to me...
Sounds like everyone in this thread could benefit from conducting some aggressive letter writing.
But it DOES look worthwhile at low levels according to those numbers...
Only against extra high AC opponents might it be less effective... But I don`t think Fighters shy away from Power Attack at low levels because SOMETIMES they might not want to use it.
Yup, and my numbers don't include any buffing or teamwork (such a flanking). If you have those, the Magus's edge only grows (and you're absolutely right--if the enemy's AC is really high, no one's forcing the Magus to use Spell Combat on that particular fight).
I chose level 6 because it was the only level where all primary spellcasters have better spells than the Magus until the Magus gets Improved Spell Combat, but maybe 6 isn't low enough for everyone talking about low levels? The numbers are very similar at level 3 (casting success is worse by 1, hitting average on-CR enemy AC is better by 1, so it shouldn't change much).
Hmmm... Then again, Santa stopped coming after that one letter...
Now with Spell Combat. Starting on the second round, she tries to Spell Combat in those two spells she wants until they work, while whacking. On the first round, she has a 75% chance of casting her 2nd-level spell, and only a 50% chance of hitting.
How does she get a 75% chance to cast her 2nd-level spell? The DC is 19 (15+2*2), while the concentration check is d20+6+INT. To get a 75% chance, only a roll of 5 or lower can fail, so you need an INT bonus of 7 (INT 24). Otherwise, you have to assume Combat Casting and INT 16. Which means you pretty much have to take Combat Casting.
Now with Spell Combat. Starting on the second round, she tries to Spell Combat in those two spells she wants until they work, while whacking. On the first round, she has a 75% chance of casting her 2nd-level spell, and only a 50% chance of hitting.How does she get a 75% chance to cast her 2nd-level spell? The DC is 19 (15+2*2), while the concentration check is d20+6+INT. To get a 75% chance, only a roll of 5 or lower can fail, so you need an INT bonus of 7 (INT 24). Otherwise, you have to assume Combat Casting and INT 16. Which means you pretty much have to take Combat Casting.
Yes, Combat Casting is assumed (see my build for Schala the Magus here). If you don't take Combat Casting, whether you be Magus, Wizard, or Cleric, you really don't want to be casting spells on the front line in Pathfinder at low levels, so you won't get much use out of Spell Combat at lower levels anyway, but you can still play a fun Magus at those levels who focuses on other aspects and wait for the Spell Combat until later.
I know a lot of people have been bandying around that Combat Casting is a "feat tax", but really, Pathfinder made casting on the defensive very difficult at low levels, so I think it's a must take for any caster who will see significant play on the front lines (a Laughing Touch Sorcerer, for instance, since I know that power to be extremely effective).
Caineach`s / Draco Caerulus` numbers seem to show that Spell Combat can in fact work out great for reasonable builds at low levels. So I don`t see the problem. If you take Combat Casting, you can make it work right away at low levels, which is where the only difficulty is, and if you don`t you can focus on something else but enjoy the benefits of Martial Weapons, Arcane Spellcasting in Armor, and Good Saves (of the best 2 types) right off the bat. Actually, that sounds perfect for a build NOT focusing on attack spells or worrying about DCs, but focusing spell-wise on buffs appled pre-combat/early combat out of melee. And if you like the option of full out melee + spell attacks, that`s fully available. If one build happens to require a Feat, I don`t think that`s really diverging too much from what is the case for other classes...
It would help a lot if we knew something about the types of new touch spells that would be in Ultimate Magic.
For instance, say there is a 1st level touch spell that reduces your opponent's AC (straight penalty, or making him flatfooted, or making all your attacks against that opponent count as touch attacks, or similar). If there is such a spell, then the spell combat ability suddenly becomes much more worthwhile even at low levels.
There is a cantrip but again Magus no get that stuff.
0th level cantrip: Touch of fatigue (lowers AC because it causes -2 Str and Dex).All the good core PF spells are lacking.
Yes, Combat Casting is assumed (see my build for Schala the Magus here). If you don't take Combat Casting, whether you be Magus, Wizard, or Cleric, you really don't want to be casting spells on the front line in Pathfinder at low levels,
I read this as "You don't want to be a Magus"
I know a lot of people have been bandying around that Combat Casting is a "feat tax", but really, Pathfinder made casting on the defensive very difficult at low levels, so I think it's a must take for any caster who will see significant play on the front lines (a Laughing Touch Sorcerer, for instance, since I know that power to be extremely effective).
The difference is the Magus is designed around casting in combat. That makes Combat Casting the definition of a feat tax.
I read the first page of this thread, and some of the posts were exceedingly long (though no less important), but I saw in another thread where someone had posited a -3, -2, -1 (or something like that) progression instead of -4, -2, -0. I thought it was a quirky idea. Has anyone done the math.
If this has been brought up in this thread, I apologize.
I read the first page of this thread, and some of the posts were exceedingly long (though no less important), but I saw in another thread where someone had posited a -3, -2, -1 (or something like that) progression instead of -4, -2, -0. I thought it was a quirky idea. Has anyone done the math.
If this has been brought up in this thread, I apologize.
it changes very little
in terms of the percent chance of success that change would improve your initial success rate by 5%
a value too small to notice in the time frame of early levels
I read the first page of this thread, and some of the posts were exceedingly long (though no less important), but I saw in another thread where someone had posited a -3, -2, -1 (or something like that) progression instead of -4, -2, -0. I thought it was a quirky idea. Has anyone done the math.
If this has been brought up in this thread, I apologize.
it changes very little
in terms of the percent chance of success that change would improve your initial success rate by 5%
a value too small to notice in the time frame of early levels
Thank you for this. I was thinking about applying that concept to a rewrite of the class feature, causing a small increase in damage that didn't make or break the damage, while never truly negating the penalty itself.
What you are saying is, that at every step there is no noticeable difference between this rewrite and the original.
I read the first page of this thread, and some of the posts were exceedingly long (though no less important), but I saw in another thread where someone had posited a -3, -2, -1 (or something like that) progression instead of -4, -2, -0. I thought it was a quirky idea. Has anyone done the math.
If this has been brought up in this thread, I apologize.
it changes very little
in terms of the percent chance of success that change would improve your initial success rate by 5%
a value too small to notice in the time frame of early levels
Thank you for this. I was thinking about applying that concept to a rewrite of the class feature, causing a small increase in damage that didn't make or break the damage, while never truly negating the penalty itself.
What you are saying is, that at every step there is no noticeable difference between this rewrite and the original.
I dunno, every 5% is actually reasonably noticeable here, but it depends on your definition of noticeable. For instance, let's say you're my level 6 sample Magus Schala with a 75% success chance. Decreasing the penalty raises that chance to 80%, which in itself eliminates 20% of all your failures. I think that's really a pretty good boost.
As you predicted, though, on the other end, changing Greater to -1 instead of 0 is probably mostly immaterial--by that level the Magus is likely to succeed automatically.
When I saw this thread title, I just presumed it was about the Barbarian. Upon reading the OP, I can't help but feel the barbarian should be remembered in light of this complaint about the magus.
I read the first page of this thread, and some of the posts were exceedingly long (though no less important), but I saw in another thread where someone had posited a -3, -2, -1 (or something like that) progression instead of -4, -2, -0. I thought it was a quirky idea. Has anyone done the math.
If this has been brought up in this thread, I apologize.
it changes very little
in terms of the percent chance of success that change would improve your initial success rate by 5%
a value too small to notice in the time frame of early levels
Thank you for this. I was thinking about applying that concept to a rewrite of the class feature, causing a small increase in damage that didn't make or break the damage, while never truly negating the penalty itself.
What you are saying is, that at every step there is no noticeable difference between this rewrite and the original.
well there's a mathmatical difference seen in averages over time problem is the number of dice rolls a player will make in the early levels before they start getting additional modifers from other sources BAB, feats, magic items etc to improve the roll is far too small a sample size that your going to see those averages play out and be noticed.
its made even worse because the average AC of monsters is going to vary from group to group combined with a player might have a moderately lucky or unlucky run during those first levels +/- 1 either way is going to go unnoticed.
@ Phasics and Rogue Eidolon: I understand your math and why you come to this conclusion, but for the sake of argument, let's keep to averages (which is what we're working with as far as our math is concerned, correct?)
Let's say that the average group size is what--four, five (not counting the DM)?
At levels 2, 4 and 6 what are our math results (that is, before it starts to matter less).
Rogue Eidolon makes a good point when she brings the math into a different light. The difference between damage-out put may be a bit more than is being let on...
Sorry if any of this comes off as nonsense. I want to accurate answers. :)
Thanks both of you.
@ Phasics and Rogue Eidolon: I understand your math and why you come to this conclusion, but for the sake of argument, let's keep to averages (which is what we're working with as far as our math is concerned, correct?)
Let's say that the average group size is what--four, five (not counting the DM)?
At levels 2, 4 and 6 what are our math results (that is, before it starts to matter less).
Rogue Eidolon makes a good point when she brings the math into a different light. The difference between damage-out put may be a bit more than is being let on...
Sorry if any of this comes off as nonsense. I want to accurate answers. :)
Thanks both of you.
It's actually the same at 2, 4, and 6, at least for Schala (her to-hit rises exactly on par with the average AC of monsters according to the Bestiary).
Schala Level 2 vs Bestiary Average AC CR 2 Monster:
Normal Spell Combat--50% hit chance.
Your change--55% hit chance (eliminates 10% of failures)
Schala Level 4 vs Bestiary Average AC CR 4 Monster:
Normal Spell Combat--50% hit chance.
Your change--55% hit chance (eliminates 10% of failures)
Schala Level 6 vs Bestiary Average AC CR 6 Monster:
Normal Spell Combat--50% hit chance.
Your change--55% hit chance (eliminates 10% of failures)
@ Phasics and Rogue Eidolon: I understand your math and why you come to this conclusion, but for the sake of argument, let's keep to averages (which is what we're working with as far as our math is concerned, correct?)
Let's say that the average group size is what--four, five (not counting the DM)?
At levels 2, 4 and 6 what are our math results (that is, before it starts to matter less).
Rogue Eidolon makes a good point when she brings the math into a different light. The difference between damage-out put may be a bit more than is being let on...
Sorry if any of this comes off as nonsense. I want to accurate answers. :)
Thanks both of you.
for the sake of argument
Being a MAD class 16 STR , actually 17 we'll be generous and add that 4th level stat bonus to make it 18
Level 2 BAB +1 STR +3 vs AC12
Level 4 BAB +3 STR +4 vs AC15
Level 6 BAB +4 STR +4 (+1 magic item) vs AC17
Those AC's are mook AC's which is were I think the Magus needs to focus
a Solo AC would be 20+ at 6th
Now applying standard -4 to attack rolls
Level 2 BAB +1 STR +3 -4 vs AC12 = 0 vs AC12 = 40% chance
Level 4 BAB +3 STR +4 -4 vs AC15 = 3 vs AC15 = 40% chance
Level 6 BAB +4 STR +4 (+1 magic item) -4 vs AC17 = 5 vs AC17 =40% chance
almost as if I'd planned that hehehe 40% chance to hit
Applying a standrd -3 peanlty instead
Level 2 BAB +1 STR +3 -3 vs AC12 = 1 vs AC12 = 45% chance
Level 4 BAB +3 STR +4 -3 vs AC15 = 4 vs AC15 = 45% chance
Level 6 BAB +4 STR +4 (+1 magic item) -3 vs AC17 = 6 vs AC17 =45% chance
45% chance to hit
As I said decreasing from -4 to -3 is a 5% shift
as far as damage goes
without wasting a feat your at best using a 1d8 weapon 1h
1d8+4 damage
@ 40% = 3.4 dmg/round
@ 45% = ~3.8 dmg/round
resulting in a total of a 0.4dmg/round bonus
like I said your not going to notice it
even if I max this
exotic weapon prof bastard sword plus enlarge person
2d8+5dmg
@40%= 5.6dmg/round
@45%= 6.3dmg/round
resulting in a 0.7dmg/round bonus
heh did I mention your not going to notice it ;)
EDIT if you factor in rogue's 10% spell on weapon sucess rate increase as well we're talking another 10% of avg 5dmg for an extra 0.5dmg
so overall I think we can safely put the change on average at 1dmg/per round
but since damage dosent happen every round that extra 1 damage will be hidden inside e.g. a 5d6 shocking burst
and
your not going to notice it ;)
@Phasics--Your damage doesn't include magic weapons and the like (Arcane Weapon class feature, frex). For Schala, who uses a Rapier, I have (unbuffed):
Level 2--1d6+4
Level 4--1d6+5+1d6 electricity
Level 6--1d6+8+1d6 electricity
This still isn't a huge gain in expected value, of course--we're looking at .375 more damage per round at level 2, .6 extra damage per round at level 4, and .75 extra damage per round at level 6 (more with buffs).
@Phasics--Your damage doesn't include magic weapons and the like (Arcane Weapon class feature, frex). For Schala, who uses a Rapier, I have (unbuffed):
Level 2--1d6+4
Level 4--1d6+5+1d6 electricity
Level 6--1d6+8+1d6 electricity
so an extra 1d6+1dmg = 4.5dmg with 5% hit difference = 0.2dmg
so take that 1dmg/round and make it 1.2/dmg round difference
I just heard a much better idea from another thread anyway
Magus level = BAB when performing Spell combat
Spell combat always has a -2 penalty that never goes away
sound familiar ?
its flurry rules and they work well and rewards staying with the class
The nice part
Level 2 Magus = +2BAB -2 peanlty = 0
when you start using spell combat you don't apply a negative modifier and can attack with your flat STR or DEX bonus
@Phasics and Rogue Eidolon:
Excellent. Onto the next point of discussion, without derailing us too much:
Has it been established that the output in attack/damage is too low? Earlier in this thread it was stated that "lessening the penalties on Spell Combat is like giving a 10 year old the keys to a Ferrari, and expecting him to drive it correctly" or something to that effect, but that only really establishes that lowering the penalties would detract from the over-all flavor of the class.
Is this class too weak?
@Phasics and Rogue Eidolon:
Excellent. Onto the next point of discussion, without derailing us too much:
Has it been established that the output in attack/damage is too low? Earlier in this thread it was stated that "lessening the penalties on Spell Combat is like giving a 10 year old the keys to a Ferrari, and expecting him to drive it correctly" or something to that effect, but that only really establishes that lowering the penalties would detract from the over-all flavor of the class.
Is this class too weak?
I can get 12 maybe 15 using 5d6 shocking per round and around 10 a round using others at 5th level
weak ?
I'd call it below average
The magus, while using his class ability has burned through two spells when compared to the magus not using his class ability.
The magus gets spells per day like a BARD rather than a SORCERER. So he simply doesn't have that number to toss around.
That's part of the tradeoff that I already addressed.
Secondly, while crunching numbers and looking at averages and chances. You are assuming that getting the spell off on round 2 is as much of a success as getting the spell off at round 1. This is simply not true. People have brought up action economy, but evidently not tied it to the fact that rounds in combat are not created equal. Round 1 is far more important than round 2, as most combats are decided quite early.. it is a question of gaining advantage and pressing it or having it reversed. The effects of prior round's actions or inactions accumulate. If a spell is going to matter being able to cast it without fail is essential, that's why you won't see many wizards in mithril chain despite 10% being a low chance for failure. The 45% chance of failure for this is akin to the wizard being in platemail!
Yes, the effects of actions and inactions accumulate. But the preliminary analysis I did (along with that number crunching of some others) shows that the long term average is a bit better with Spell Combat. That would imply that the positive results would accumulate quicker.
The penalty of -4 to hit is also VERY large. A ranger meanwhile using TWF or Rapid shot only suffers a -2 to hit, has full BAB, is nowhere as pressed for stats as the magus, as is guaranteed to get his second attack. If the ranger's TWF were more along the likes of -6 to hit (much like TWF without the feat) it would not be a great option. In fact people would debate whether it was worth using at all.
The TWF ranger only gets the -2 to hit if he's using a light weapon in his offhand. If he's using two one-handed weapons, his penalty will be at -4. I think being able to attack with a one-handed weapon and cast a spell at the same time is much more akin to using two one-handed weapons. The tradeoff seems reasonable to me.
Lastly, we're arguing if the ability is better than nothing. That this is the main class ability will tell you that there is a great deal of weakness here. The class is giving up a much more detailed and expanding list (the wizard/sorcerer list), all the higher level (7-9) spells, and a better casting progression (wiz/sorc vs bard) for these class features. That one can argue that it is even close to not having any ability is insane.
The fact that wizards and sorcerers have better spells at higher levels is irrelevant here, because the issue for the magus using Spell Casting is only a problem (or, at least, perceived to be a problem) at low levels. With Improved Spell Combat the penalties are reduced, and with Greater Spell Combat the penalties disappear. There's still the issue of having to make a concentration check for the spell in the first place (but keep in mind that a melee-based character will probably have to make concentrations checks often enough anyway), but that's a small price to pay for effectively doubling your actions for the round.
Comparing a TWF PC, a Rapid Shot PC, and a Magus using Spell Combat, I saw something that hasn't been addressed yet. Looking past the actual numbers, the Magus gets to attack and do something completely different. At low levels, ofc the penalty should be higher than TWF/Rapid Shot. Those feats (which, btw, are required, even as a ranger; any time you want to do something other than a basic attack or movement, you are being 'taxed' by needing a feat or class ability) only allow you to attack in melee or ranged twice, which is two standard actions for level 2. A Magus is allowed to attack in melee once then cast any spell they know, which can be a buff, nerf, battlefield control, melee or ranged attack, even frickin' detect magic. A higher-then-average penalty, and one which goes away, unlike normal multi-attacking, is a small price when compared to combat versatility. How is it NOT overpowered that at level 4 I can cast Enlarge Person, Bull's Str. and Bear's End. the same three rounds I'm attacking baddies? If there is an opportunity to prepare for a fight, a Magus is equal to a Wizard when buffing. If you are surprised, though, a Magus is at a significant edge because he will not be wasting the actions a wizard goes through to buff for a fight. That is what intrigues me about the Magus. The actual saving of actions during a fight, especially at low levels. I see no problem with being penalized for being awesome :).
|
|
I will be making a few posts here, I want to go over what spells he can cast and what I think his primary purpose is:
level 1
evocation
burning hands
floating disk
m-missle
s-grasp
transmute
enlarge person
expedious retreat
feather fall
jump
magic weapon
reduce person
div
true strike
necro
illuison
color spray
silent image
abjur
shield
conj
grease
mount
obscuring mist
unseen servant
for his level 1 slots, it appears that he is slightly more towards the "help myself, then conjure and explode things" as he has 2 more spells in transmutation than in evocation or conjuration. note that he has the same amount of conj as evocation.
|
|
level 2
evoc
darkness
flaming sphere
gust of wind
scorching ray
shatter
transmute
alter self
bears
cats
bulls
levitate
pyrotechnics
spider climb
div
necro
illuison
blur
invisibility
minor image
mirror image
abjur
conj
acid arrow
glitterdust
web
He gets less conjuration for this level, but most of the buffing transmutation spells, he also gets a good 6+ damaging spells, but blur and invisibilty mid battle allow for very versatile tactics.
I'd say 25% illsion 45% transmute 20% evocation
but you have to be picky about what you are going to need to cast -> hence why i think transmutation is so important -> they work against most any enemy by not having to rely on their ability's (no res fire) and equipment (shatter)
|
|
level 3
evoc
daylight
fireball
l-bolt
wind wall
transmute
beast shape
flame arrow
fly
gaseuous form
haste
keen edge
magic weapon greater
slow
water breathing
div
arcane sight
necro
illuison
displacement
major image
abjur
dispel magic
conj
phantom steed
sleet storm
on this level he gains some nice powerfull spells (fireball, l-bolt, dispel magic) and some utilities ( arcane sight w-breathing, haste, slow, fly) and a nice buffer (beast shape, m-weapon greater)
however he would never want to cast fireball in battle (5d6+ dmg to my own face, no thank you) and he should probobly focus more on the dispel magic and haste and slow.
so most of the slots go to transmutation with 1 going to abjuration, maybe 1 to evocation.