|
You know i could spend more time looking at all the spells... but i think the point is that he is first off a buffer and helper and secondly a fire-slinger. some of the damaging spells (fireball, flame sphere) and some of the buffs (enlarge person, bears, invisibilty) are just to good to pass up for damage, as they drastically increase survivabilty.
I don't know maybe i just have never played a combat that lasted less than 6 rounds (except against low level zombies), so survivabilty seems to trump dps in my mind.
You know i could spend more time looking at all the spells... but i think the point is that he is first off a buffer and helper and secondly a fire-slinger. some of the damaging spells (fireball, flame sphere) and some of the buffs (enlarge person, bears, invisibilty) are just to good to pass up for damage, as they drastically increase survivabilty.
I don't know maybe i just have never played a combat that lasted less than 6 rounds (except against low level zombies), so survivabilty seems to trump dps in my mind.
here's my problem with that
as soon as he's a better buffer and fire slinger second then you have to compare him to a Cleric or Oracle becuase thats their niche and he pales in comparison to what you can do with them.
If the Magus is to have his own niche then buffing needs to be secondary
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
here's my problem with that
as soon as he's a better buffer and fire slinger second then you have to compare him to a Cleric or Oracle becuase thats their niche and he pales in comparison to what you can do with them.
If the Magus is to have his own niche then buffing needs to be secondary
Phasics, have you ever played a Psychic warrior? He really fits the definition of 'buffer first/slinger second' without the ability to slash and cast (well manifest) simultaniously. The class is far from broken and a pretty good guideline. My own arcane legionary looks to him for inspiration (working on V 2 now)
I think it works for Magius
I like the current progression. Its just a little difficult at low levels.
possibly trading spots with combat spell and arcane weapon bond would make it level out at lower levels.
having the plus to hit from arcane weapon bond would make you a better melee combatant early on and would help buffer the combat spell penalty later.
at 4th level your caster level is twice as high giving you a better but not automatic chance at combat spell, also with more spells available the loss of a spell wont be so tremendous.
also anyone with an odd str or int could bump one up to further minimize either the attack or concentration penalty.
Odd though. What if the Magus didn't losse the spell when it failed a Spell Combat? That's the real problem with the low success rate at lower levels. It puts off people from using it because they have a good chance of lossing a very limited resource with no benefit.
|
|
Odd though. What if the Magus didn't losse the spell when it failed a Spell Combat? That's the real problem with the low success rate at lower levels. It puts off people from using it because they have a good chance of lossing a very limited resource with no benefit.
That would be better, but the -4 to attack is still huge. It's annoying to see that a magus that is proficient in his weapons, would be such a huge penalty for what he is trained for, and there is no way around this. Even fighters can take Two-Weapon Fighting to get around the huge penalties. A magus can't do anything other than not use his most powerful class feature.
This is why I believe the penalty should be removed. Or reduced to -2 to attack, and keep -2 to Concentration checks. This prevent a feat tax. Or prevent the class from needing to give out Combat Casting as a class feature. Improved Spell Combat would reduce both penalties to 0, and Greater grants +2 to each. Have the level 20 True Magus feature stack with that.
Ok, Mr. Fishy has an idea. >Waits for trolls to gather<
What if instead of a penalty to attack and a high concentration for spell combat. The Magus takes a hit to his AC like rage or cleave. The magus could then reduce the AC penalty as he gains levels.
Also he could opt to cast and risk an AoO or roll a concentration. That way he chooses his poison.
1. He rolls a concentration check with a chance of failure.
2. He skips the concentration and risk the AoO.
Either way he takes a penalty to AC, not concentration and attack. He's more likely to hit and he has options on how to cast. With or without a concentration check. Armor and buffs can cover the AC penalty at low levels and higher levels reduce the penalty to nothing. Spell Combat is still a gamble just better odds.
The big fallacy is the feat tax necessary for the Magus. If you want to be an effective two-weapon fighter, you need TWF, Double Slice, and to keep up with Improved Spell Casting, ITWF, GTWF, TWR. If you want to be an effective archer, you need PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot. So requiring Combat Casting, which goes from negating a penalty to pure bonus, is not a feat tax but just a good choice.
The big fallacy is the feat tax necessary for the Magus. If you want to be an effective two-weapon fighter, [blah blah blah]
No, really? To be an effective Two-Weapon Fighter - an option granted solely by feats, you have to take feats? Your observational skills astound me.
|
The big fallacy is the feat tax necessary for the Magus. If you want to be an effective two-weapon fighter, [blah blah blah]No, really? To be an effective Two-Weapon Fighter - an option granted solely by feats, you have to take feats? Your observational skills astound me.
umm how is TWF a feat based ability? Anyone can TWF...they just take a -6/-10. The feats just let you do this better.
The big fallacy is the feat tax necessary for the Magus. If you want to be an effective two-weapon fighter, you need TWF, Double Slice, and to keep up with Improved Spell Casting, ITWF, GTWF, TWR. If you want to be an effective archer, you need PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot. So requiring Combat Casting, which goes from negating a penalty to pure bonus, is not a feat tax but just a good choice.
I believe the argument lies in the fact that a fighter does not actually need to go down the Two-Weapon Fighting tree or the Archery tree to fight in a capable manner (unless he wants to opt for dual-wielding or ranged combat that is), which is the whole focus of the class, while a magus may very well need to take Combat Casting to do what the class is, as far as I can tell anyway, designed for, which is to combine melee combat and spellcasting effectively while in close combat.
umm how is TWF a feat based ability? Anyone can TWF...they just take a -6/-10. The feats just let you do this better.
It is meant in the way that noone is going to be fighting with two weapons without having taken a necessary feat or two. Sure, anyone can give it a try, but considering the -6/-10 penalties, it would be pointless and a fool's errand to do so.
The big fallacy is the feat tax necessary for the Magus. If you want to be an effective two-weapon fighter, [blah blah blah]No, really? To be an effective Two-Weapon Fighter - an option granted solely by feats, you have to take feats? Your observational skills astound me.
And yet the main argument is that the Magus cannot use a class ability without a feat, when the comparison to what it should be on par with, such as TWF, requires multiple feats to be equivalent.
|
|
The big fallacy is the feat tax necessary for the Magus. If you want to be an effective two-weapon fighter, you need TWF, Double Slice, and to keep up with Improved Spell Casting, ITWF, GTWF, TWR. If you want to be an effective archer, you need PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot. So requiring Combat Casting, which goes from negating a penalty to pure bonus, is not a feat tax but just a good choice.I believe the argument lies in the fact that a fighter does not actually need to go down the Two-Weapon Fighting tree or the Archery tree to fight in a capable manner (unless he wants to opt for dual-wielding or ranged combat that is), which is the whole focus of the class, while a magus may very well need to take Combat Casting to do what the class is, as far as I can tell anyway, designed for, which is to combine melee combat and spellcasting effectively while in close combat.
umm how is TWF a feat based ability? Anyone can TWF...they just take a -6/-10. The feats just let you do this better.It is meant in the way that noone is going to be fighting with two weapons without having taken a necessary feat or two. Sure, anyone can give it a try, but considering the -6/-10 penalties, it would be pointless and a fool's errand to do so.
make a fighter that has no combat feats relevant to what he is using and see if he can fight.
BTW a TWF with all bow feats CANT TWFso why should a guy in melee combat be good at casting in combat without combat casting
umm how is TWF a feat based ability? Anyone can TWF...they just take a -6/-10. The feats just let you do this better.The big fallacy is the feat tax necessary for the Magus. If you want to be an effective two-weapon fighter, [blah blah blah]No, really? To be an effective Two-Weapon Fighter - an option granted solely by feats, you have to take feats? Your observational skills astound me.
Exactly. Anyone can TWF. No class has TWF as the specific class design. TWFing is itself a feat tree available to any class that takes the feat tree. His comparison is false.
And yet the main argument is that the Magus cannot use a class ability without a feat, when the comparison to what it should be on par with, such as TWF, requires multiple feats to be equivalent.The big fallacy is the feat tax necessary for the Magus. If you want to be an effective two-weapon fighter, [blah blah blah]No, really? To be an effective Two-Weapon Fighter - an option granted solely by feats, you have to take feats? Your observational skills astound me.
Spell Combat is a class ability. TWF is a feat tree.
Never mind the fact that Spell Combat is not even actually relatable to TWF. Spell Combat is more like "Astral" Two-Weapon Fighting. An imaginary system I just made the hell up to show people how terrible Spell Combat is. In ATWF, you take normal TWF penalties, however, your weapon is also blinking and you only have a 50% chance to that you can even use your offhand attack.
make a fighter that has no combat feats relevant to what he is using and see if he can fight.
Sure he can, at least sufficiently enough to not feel handicapped. He will not excel, I will grant you that, but he can still fight. E.g. he could use a greatsword or a longsword and shield or a greataxe or a mace and shield and so on and so forth effectively enough without ever taking the Weapon Focus or Shield Focus tree feats, but he would of course not be as good as someone who took those feats.
Keep in mind of course that dual-wielding is a style of combat that no fighter has to pursue to be a capable fighter, but may choose to do so if that is his poison, to use a phrase. He would of course have to take the necessary feats, otherwise it is a pointless venture. Furthermore, dual-wielding is something entirely different than simple choice of favorite weapon. Heck, I could go as far as to say that he could be decent enough at using a bow without the Archery feats; decent, but not great.
BTW a TWF with all bow feats CANT TWF
Yes, I know. I actually mentioned something to that effect.
It is meant in the way that noone is going to be fighting with two weapons without having taken a necessary feat or two. Sure, anyone can give it a try, but considering the -6/-10 penalties, it would be pointless and a fool's errand to do so.
And finally...
so why should a guy in melee combat be good at casting in combat without combat casting
He should not be good at it, I will give you that, but he should at least be able. He should be able to perform adequately from the beginning; the feat should give him the ability to actually be good at it. But the Magus, it could be argued, is not even adequate at using Spell Combat before the 8th level (when he gets the Improved version) without the Combat Casting feat. But, from 8th level and on, he is fine and dandy and the Combat Casting feat becomes a nice addition, but by no means necessary, at least in my opinion.
The assertion that Combat Casting for the Magus to use Spell Combat effectively is not a feat tax because TWF is a not feat tax because everyone needs it to perform a specific type of combat effectively is the epitome of absurd. It's like saying "I need Power Attack to Power Attack! It's a feat tax!"
|
|
The assertion that Combat Casting for the Magus to use Spell Combat effectively is not a feat tax because TWF is a not feat tax because everyone needs it to perform a specific type of combat effectively is the epitome of absurd. It's like saying "I need Power Attack to Power Attack! It's a feat tax!"
I disagree, as one does not need to take power attack to do what it does which is "hit harder" one only needs to increase their STR. but as it should be pointed out, at early levels it is easier to "hit harder" by taking power attack, rather than increasing one's STR. And power attack has a penalty with it, it is harder to hit with, whilst combat casting has no penalties and you can still do the same thing as combat casting by increasing your caster level, the feat itself is unnecessary to cast in combat it only makes you better.
So why shouldn't spell combat have penalties?It allows someone to do something extra powerful (like power attack) by sacrificing something in return. (like power attack again)
Only unlike power attack it removes those penalties as the magus levels, rather than increasing them.
Any barbarian will tell you that to make every hit hurt alot with a two handed weapon, you should take power attack.
Any magus will tell you that if you want to cast your highest level spells every round of combat, get more spells and get combat casting.
Alot of barbarians will however say that they can do other things aside from swing every round (any combat manuver, intimidating glare, etc) and thus don't require power attack.
Alot of magus will however say that that they can do other things aside from cast every round (magus arcana, combat manuver, etc) and thus don't require combat casting.
The assertion that Combat Casting for the Magus to use Spell Combat effectively is not a feat tax because TWF is a not feat tax because everyone needs it to perform a specific type of combat effectively is the epitome of absurd. It's like saying "I need Power Attack to Power Attack! It's a feat tax!"
I'm not really familiar before these boards with people calling things a 'feat tax', so you could convince me either way, but I'm not sure that an obvious optimisation choice should necessarily be called a feat tax. If it should, it should be across the board. If you agree that the following should be considered a feat tax (or at least a good number of them), I will readily agree with you that Combat Casting is as well (I'm not actually trying to push for one side or the other here--I realise that I'm uninformed about the terminology 'feat tax' and would like to hear what people think about these scenarios so I can understand it and use it better).
For instance, let's say a certain build is very very high on accuracy but low on damage to the point of being pretty weak (before feats). Would Power Attack or Deadly Aim be a feat tax? Let's say a class is crazy strong at killing its foes but gets dropped all the time for its low hit dice. Would Toughness be a feat tax? Let's say a class has a powerful ability with a nasty side effect of healing their enemies or stopping their own spells. Would Selective Channeling and Natural Spell be a feat tax? Let's say a class has a very small number of rounds per day to grant a large bonus to the whole party, but there's a feat that can triple that--would Lingering Song be a feat tax? Let's say a class has ridiculously efficient buffing potential for the party after selecting a choosable power (or a feat to gain said power) but until then can only self buff--is Infusion a Discovery tax (or Extra Discovery: Infusion a feat tax) for Alchemist? Let's say you want to have a powerful and relevant melee Eidolon at mid to high levels--is the Large evolution an evolution tax? Are Improved Trip and Greater Trip a feat tax for a trip-based combatant (and if not, is Combat Expertise?)
~RE
|
|
so why should a guy in melee combat be good at casting in combat without combat castingHe should not be good at it, I will give you that, but he should at least be able. He should be able to perform adequately from the beginning; the feat should give him the ability to actually be good at it. But the Magus, it could be argued, is not even adequate at using Spell Combat before the 8th level (when he gets the Improved version) without the Combat Casting feat. But, from 8th level and on, he is fine and dandy and the Combat...
Do i need to point back to my first post yesterday which points out that a conservative magus IS able to cast all of his spells WHILE in combat at level 4 and up with combat casting?
and that before that, he does not have the spells to need to cast more than 1 per encounter and thus only needs to cast in the first round then go to melee?70%+ encounters at levels 1-4 don't allow all charaters to full attack first round anyways. so all he can do is either cast a spell or standard attack, so he won't be able to use it anyways.
Feat Tax A feat or group of feats that are required to make a character viable. Without the feat the character is weak or underpowered.
Combat casting is "need" to make a Magus' class ability viable.
|
|
A halfling rogue (22 DEX, 12STR) with TWF, Weapon Finesse (talent) and Exotic weapon: sawtooth sabre.The rogue has a pair of +1 sabres that normally attacks at +9/+9(3BAB 6DEX 1Size 1weapon -2TWF) for 1d6+2+2d6. Against AC 18 the rogue has a 60% chance to hit for 12.5 each time, or 15 expected damage.
A human fighter (22STR) with Power attack, WF/WS greatsword. The fighter has a +1 greatsword that normally attacks at +10 (4BAB 6STR 1Weapon 1Feat -2PA) for 2d6+18. Against AC 18 the fighter has a 65% chance to hit for 25 avg dam or 16.25 expected damage.
And this is reasonably a good place for the magus at low levels as it's when he just gets arcane weapon, hasn't lost a 2nd BAB, and has 2nd level spells now. At a -2 to hit rather than -4 the magus moves up to around the rogue's level of damage (before he picks up his next sneak die).
-James
max lvl 1 dex 20 (18 +2 halfling)
max lvl 4 dex 21 (18 +2 half +1 lvl 4)where is the 22 coming from
also BULL's STRENGTH magus has it guys his STR or DEX or CON should be 4 higher.
also damage from str rounded down from 1 to zero due to light weapons (sabre not in PHB so assuming light if not penaltys are -4, -4).
2 sabres at level 4 do 1d6 each i assume so 2d6 + 2 (magic)
gotta go to class be back in 3 hours
Do i need to point back to my first post yesterday which points out that a conservative magus IS able to cast all of his spells WHILE in combat at level 4 and up with combat casting?
and that before that, he does not have the spells to need to cast more than 1 per encounter and thus only needs to cast in the first round then go to melee?
70%+ encounters at levels 1-4 don't allow all charaters to full attack first round anyways. so all he can do is either cast a spell or standard attack, so he won't be able to use it anyways.
Then what is the point of getting the ability at 2nd level if it is unusable either due to full round actions or full attacks being practically non-existent at levels 1-4 or due to the severe penalties making it a liability at levels 1-4 even when full round actions do exist?
And as you said, a concervative magus IS able to cast all of his spells WHILE in combat at level 4 and up with Combat Casting. What happens without it?
And Spell Combat is supposedly a combination of melee and spellcasting. Even if the spell works, what about the attack? At a -4 penalty for a medium BAB class that has to divide ability points between Intelligence and Strength and, to a lesser degree, Dexterity and Constitution, what are the chances the Magus actually hits instead of misses at low levels?
My point basically is not that Spell Combat is not a very useful ability because it is. It grants the oportunity to both attack and cast a spell at the same round. My point is that it is a liability and has a high risk of the Magus doing absolutely nothing for the round it is used in when used at the lower levels -if it is ever used at those levels at all.
The assertion that Combat Casting for the Magus to use Spell Combat effectively is not a feat tax because TWF is a not feat tax because everyone needs it to perform a specific type of combat effectively is the epitome of absurd. It's like saying "I need Power Attack to Power Attack! It's a feat tax!"I disagree, as one does not need to take power attack to do what it does which is "hit harder" one only needs to increase their STR. but as it should be pointed out, at early levels it is easier to "hit harder" by taking power attack, rather than increasing one's STR. And power attack has a penalty with it, it is harder to hit with, whilst combat casting has no penalties and you can still do the same thing as combat casting by increasing your caster level, the feat itself is unnecessary to cast in combat it only makes you better.
So why shouldn't spell combat have penalties?
It allows someone to do something extra powerful (like power attack) by sacrificing something in return. (like power attack again)
Only unlike power attack it removes those penalties as the magus levels, rather than increasing them.
Any barbarian will tell you that to make every hit hurt alot with a two handed weapon, you should take power attack.
Any magus will tell you that if you want to cast your highest level spells every round of combat, get more spells and get combat casting.Alot of barbarians will however say that they can do other things aside from swing every round (any combat manuver, intimidating glare, etc) and thus don't require power attack.
Alot of magus will however say that that they can do other things aside from cast every round (magus arcana, combat manuver, etc) and thus don't require combat casting.
I can't tell if you are being obtuse or are actually that ridiculous.
|
|
All I can say is I'm glad I haven't put away my old 3.5 PHBII so I can still use a Duskblade.
Oh, and if a specific feat is a requirement to be effective, it should be a class feature.
If that was the case, then the EK should be getting arcane armor line, arcane strike and combat casting as class feature...and I have yet to see the amount of vitrol over the EK not getting these when compared to the magus. I see no reason for the magus to get combat casting for free. What needs to happen is the spell combat should not be dangled in front of the players at level 2. And spell strike should work like spell channeling abilities of 3.x or be switched to work like the old arcane strike. I really don't like the free gold. I have run into issues with the paladin using it and I am not a fan of such mechanics at all.
|
|
i got bored and made a damage comparison between 1 hand 2 handed, two weapon (2 attacks) and 1 handed and spell
yes algebra and substitution are required to use this, i think i got the math right (or at least close based on some assumptions)
dmg compares
wd = weapon damage
p = power attack penalty (always positive)
m - magic
WF = weapon focus
WS = weapon specilization
BAB = base attack bonus
STR = STR bonus
dex = dex bonus
cl = caster level
cc = combat casting bonus
ab = abilities
AC = ac of enemy to hit
for the purposes of dmg calculation all weapons do same damage, all two weapon fighting weapons are light and using weapon finesse and caster level and spells are magus and spell level = ~ 1/2 * CL for 7 and under
number of attacks * % * dmg per hit = dmg
for convinence on my part i will be using caps lock from here on.
2-Handed weapon:
WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5*STR = DMG PER HIT
(1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC = % OF ATTACKS HIT
SO 2-HANDED =
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5*STR)
1 HANDED:
WD + P + M + WS + STR = DMG PER HIT
(1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC = % OF ATTACKS HIT
SO 1-HANDED =
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(WD + P + M + WS + STR)
2 WEAPON FIGHTING:
WD + P + M + WS + 1/2 * STR = DMG PER HIT
(1d20 + DEX - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC = % OF ATTACKS HIT
SO 2-WEAPON =
2*((1d20 + DEX - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(WD + P + M + WS +1/2 * STR)
OR
((1d20 + DEX - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(2 * WD + 2 * P + 2 * M + 2 * WS + STR)
SPELLS:
DMG = SPELL DMG (DEPENDS ON SPELL)
DC = 15 + 2 * N = 15 + 2 * 1 / 2 * CL = 15 + CL
CHECK = 1D20 + INT + CL + CC + AB
CHANCE = 100% - ((DC - CHECK) * 5%)
FOR HIGHEST LEVEL SPELLS;
CHANCE = 100% - ((15 - 1D20 - INT - CC - AB) * 5%)
SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2 HANDED AND 1 HANDED :
2HANDED - 1HANDED
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5*STR)
-
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(WD + P + M + WS + STR)
OR
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * ((WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5 * STR) - (WD + P + M + WS + STR))
OR
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (WD - WD + 1.5 * P - P + M - M + WS - WS + 1.5 * STR - STR)
OR
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (.5 * P + .5 * STR)
IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1 HANDED AND 2 HANDED
2 WEAPON FIGHTING DMG =
((1d20 + DEX - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(2 * WD + 2 * P + 2 * M + 2 * WS + STR)
OR
((1d20 + DEX - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (2 * (1 HANDED DMG PER HIT - STR))
OR
2 * ((1d20 + DEX - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * ((1 HANDED DMG PER HIT - STR))
SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2 WEAPON FIGHTING AND 2 HANDED =
2 * ((1d20 + DEX - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * ((1 HANDED DMG PER HIT - STR)) - ((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)*(WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5*STR)
OR
2 * (((1d20 - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) + DEX /AC ) * ((1 HANDED DMG PER HIT - STR))
-
(((1d20 - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) + STR /AC )*(WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5*STR)
OR
2 * (1d20 - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (1 HANDED DMG PER HIT - STR) + (DEX /AC) * ((1 HANDED DMG PER HIT - STR))
-
(((1d20 - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5*STR)
+ (STR /AC) * (WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5*STR)
OR
2 * (1d20 - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (1 HANDED DMG PER HIT - STR) + (DEX /AC) * ((1 HANDED DMG PER HIT - STR))
-
(((1d20 - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (1 HANDED DMG PER HIT + .5 * P + .5 * STR)
+ (STR /AC) * (1 HANDED DMG PER HIT + .5 * P + .5 * STR)
OR
2 * (1d20 - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (1 HANDED DMG PER HIT - STR) -
(((1d20 - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (1 HANDED DMG PER HIT + .5 * P + .5 * STR) + (STR /AC) * (WD + 1.5*P + M + WS +1.5*STR) + (DEX /AC) * ((1 HANDED DMG PER HIT - STR))
OR
1 HANDED = H
(1d20 - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) = X
2 * X * (H - STR) - X * (H + .5 * P + .5 * STR)
+ (STR /AC) * (H + .5 * P + .5 * STR)
+ (DEX /AC) * (H - STR)
OR
X * (2 * H - 2 * STR - (H + .5 P + .5 STR))
+ (STR /AC) * (H + .5 * P + .5 * STR)
+ (DEX /AC) * (H - STR)
OR
X * ( H - 1.5 * STR - .5 P )
+ (STR /AC) * (H + .5 * P + .5 * STR)
+ (DEX /AC) * (H - STR)
(STR/AC IS FROM THE 2 HANDED FIGHTER AND DEX/AC IS FROM THE 2 WEAPON FIGHTER)
SPELL + 1 HANDED HAS A 20% LESS CHANCE TO HIT MELEE AND 10% LESS CHANCE TO MAKE DC
SPELL DMG = (100% - ((15 - 1D20 - INT - CC - AB) * 5%) + 10%) * SPELL DMG
1 HANDED DMG = (((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) - 20%)*(WD + P + M + WS + STR)
WILL CALL CHANCE TO HIT WIITH SPELL CS (100% - ((15 - 1D20 - INT - CC - AB) * 5%) + 10%
SO 1HANDED + SPELL =
(((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) - 20%)*(WD + P + M + WS + STR) + (100% - ((15 - 1D20 - INT - CC - AB) * 5%) + 10%) * SPELL DMG
THE DIFF BETWEEN THIS AND 1 HANDED =
(((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) - 20%)*(WD + P + M + WS + STR) + (100% - ((15 - 1D20 - INT - CC - AB) * 5%) + 10%) * SPELL DMG
- ((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (WD + P + M + WS + STR)
OR
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * H - 20% * H + CS * SPELL - ((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * H
OR
-20% H + CS * SPELL
DIFF BETWEEN 1 HAND + SPELL AND 2 HAND
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * H - 20% * H + CS * SPELL -
((1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (H + .5 * P + .5 STR)
OR
-20% * H + CS * SPELL - (1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (.5 P + .5 STR)
DIFFERENCES IN DMG
H = 1 HANDED WEAPON DMG PER HIT (WD + P + M + WS + STR)
CS = (100% - ((15 - 1D20 - INT - CC - AB) * 5%) + 10%
X = (1d20 - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC)
1 HANDED VS 2 HANDED
((X + STR / AC) * (.5 * P + .5 * STR)
2 WEAPON VS 2 HANDED
X * ( H - 1.5 * STR - .5 P )+ (STR /AC) * (H + .5 * P + .5 * STR) + (DEX /AC) * (H - STR)
1 HANDED AND SPELL VS 1 HANDED
-20% H + CS * SPELL
1 HANDED AND SPELL VS 2 HANDED
-20% * H + CS * SPELL - (1d20 + STR - P + WF + M + BAB) / AC) * (.5 P + .5 STR)
If that was the case, then the EK should be getting arcane armor line, arcane strike and combat casting as class feature...and I have yet to see the amount of vitrol over the EK not getting these when compared to the magus.
Were you around here in 2008 and 2009? It's just too late to change the EK now, so spewing vitriol would have no point.