|
Although I won't have the opportunity to playtest the magus anytime soon, I can't help but be underwhelmed by the impression I get from reading the class. The main problem I see is fundamental and conceptual, so I have little hope that it will be mended in the final version, since it would require a complete rewrite of the class. Nevertheless, on the off-chance that it might, here it is:
Being half-good at melee combat is as useful as having one leg.
Allow me to elaborate. Even by relatively low levels (say, 5th), being in melee is deadly business. In order to survive melee combat, one needs a lot of hitpoints, good defenses, and the ability to deal good damage reliably. Any serious melee monster at those levels is going to put out so much damage per round that nobody should willingly expose themselves to such punishment unless they can (1) take it and (2) make it worthwhile.
The melee classes -- fighters, rangers, paladins, barbarians, cavaliers -- all have access to full BAB, d10+ hitdice, good proficiencies, and more class features that make them even better at tanking, dealing damage, or both. The other classes that might be found in melee occasionally -- rogues, bards, clerics, inquisitors -- fall short on these basic necessities and therefore cannot constantly be in melee, lest they be ripped to shreds. Rogues risk melee because it gives them the chance to deal bursts of extreme damage, monks disable enemies with their ki abilities, clerics can deliver tide-turning spells like Harm or Heal in melee; in other words, these classes can situationally make it worthwhile.
Now, what does the Magus have that makes it worthwhile to charge headlong into the lion's den known as melee? He gets the ability to fail at spellcasting and swordplay at the same time! Yay! Allow me to elaborate:
(1) The Magus is a much lesser spellcaster than, say, a Wizard, on account of his retarded spell progression and limited choice of spells. That much is obvious. He must therefore be able to go into melee and make up for that. Just being able to survive a round of melee in emergencies is not enough -- the wizard can do that too, thanks to his defensive spells. The magus must benefit from being in melee.
(2) Casting an attack spell in one round and then channeling it through a sword next round is equivalent in terms of action investment and effect to casting an attack spell normally and then attacking normally next round. It's just that the Magus has a worse chance of delivering the attack spell since touch attacks are much more accurate than weapon attacks. The fact that almost all touch spells are missing from the Magus spell list just makes this worse.
(3) Dual-wielding magic and a weapon sounds like a fun concept, but I can't see the mechanics as written working. For instance, at first level, you're more likely than not to fail your concentration check, wasting your precious few spell resources, whereas your attack will lag behind an actual melee combatant by about -6 points (-4 penalty, -1 to attack stat from MAD, -1 BAB). At later levels when the penalties gradually disappear, your other shortcomings in combat will have accumulated to the point of anyway being crippling compared to other melee combatants (BAB, the fact that you're using the weakest possible combat style with single one-handed weapon).
(4) Rogues, Clerics, Monks, and Bards all make decent ranged combatants, where their medium BAB can be put to use without unduly endangering the character. Magus abilities, on the other hand, force the Magus into melee if he wants to benefit from them.
To sum this up: The Magus is a second-class spellcaster with the additional ability to go into melee and become a liability. I cannot think of an situation where a Magus would be preferable to a Bard.
Given that the Pathfinder base classes are designed to fill niches that the other base classes do not yet cover, what the game needs in my humble opinion is a class that combines effective melee combat with arcane magic. This implies a d10 hit die, full BAB, good proficienies, very limited spellcasting along the well-established model of the ranger and paladin spellcasting abilities, and some flavorful class features to round things out. Such a class could easily be balanced to the same power level as rangers and paladins while finally offering the unique gish flavor that has so far been missing.
Now I'm not familiar with all the fan-based content out there, but one particular approach that Does It Right in my opinion is the Iron Mage.
Being half-good at melee combat is as useful as having one leg.
Speaking as a parapalegic, I would appreciate a little more care and sensitivity in choosing your anologies.
When first hearing about the Magus, I expected it to have full BAB. Like you I was a bit disappointed to see it had medium BAB; I'm not sure full BAB would be overpowered even with the rest of the class features added in.
When first hearing about the Magus, I expected it to have full BAB. Like you I was a bit disappointed to see it had medium BAB; I'm not sure full BAB would be overpowered even with the rest of the class features added in.
I have to say that after doing the maths very quickly in my head, it looks to me like a fifth level magus hits only 5%(i am pretty sure that with a little more time I could) less often than the fighter and gets to piggy back the spells.
I am pretty sure they get as good an AC plus some decent attack avoidance spells.
If you want to hit "everything" in melee combat regardless of its AC, play a Fighter.
Really.
No other class should be as effective in melee combat as a Fighter.
There is no uber class that will give you a full BAB and full spellcasting, allowing you to "god-mode" the game.
|
I have to say the spell combat mechanic seems very clunky to me. Also the fact is at low lv'ls there is a very good chance of the ability not doing anything at all (Dc to cast the spell is at least 17 and taking into account a 16 Int and the - 2 to the check you're only going to need a 14+ to cast it and your attack for that turn assuming a 14 str is at -1)
Also looking it over if you fail the check you loose the spell as well which at 2nd lvl is probably going to be 1/3 of your 1st lvl spells.
Here are two questions of mine:
1. Can the Magus buff herself well enough to match a Fighter in melee?
2. Can the Magus spare actions to buff herself?I think a playtest is in order.
From the cursory reading, Magus may be prone to MAD syndrome (Intelligence for spellcasting, Strength for decent attack bonus or Dexterity + Weapon Finesse, Constitution to improve survivability). Also, Magus appears to be quite handicapped with regard to ranged combat (though a wand could alleviate lack of slots for ranged spells).
Regards,
Ruemere
Magus: Dex(+to hit, +AC, +ref, +to 7 skills), con(+Hitpoints, +fort, ), Int (+Spells, +spell DC, +skills, +to 14 skills) Note: gets to buff these stats, elf magus gets +2 dex and +2 int.
fighter: Strength (+to hit, +damage, +to carry, +to 2 skills) Dex( +AC, +ref, +to 7 skills), con(+Hitpoints, +fort, ) Note: cannot self buff, can only boost one stat with race.
I believe that since the Magus comes with a bunch of utility and combat control options in his spell list, you can hardly place him in the melee class list for comparison.
Do fighters or barbarians do anything comparable to fog cloud, web or wall spells? How about spider climb, invisibility, or teleport? True seeing? Feather Fall? Even unseen servant opens a lot of utility that the melee focused guys have nothing to compare with.
So yeah, fighter, barbarians, paladins and rangers are going to be comparatively better at combat.
I think he compares very well to the 3/4 BAB classes that bring middle ground, situational melee combat along with their bag of tricks utility.
Speaking as a parapalegic, I would appreciate a little more care and sensitivity in choosing your anologies.
Being half-good at melee combat is as useful as having one leg.
Speaking as a person with one leg instead of two useless ones, I liked his analogy.
Back to the topic at hand.
I agree with Kevin Mack, the mechanic is a little clunky, who wants to give up a hit vs touch AC for a -2 or more penalty to a normal AC attack for an extra die of damage from a weapon.
This class may become on of those that you see multi-classed into for a few useful skills then off to better things.
I ran a 2e Fighter/Mage for a long, long time (from 1/1 to level 12/12 before we converted to 3e). Converting from 2e to 3e, the WotC guidebook says take the highest level and divide the other levels by 3, so my PC became a 16th level 3e character (with no good combo of classes, but whatev).
Now 3e to PfRPG and this character would have a wealth of choices > very cool!
In using the old formula, if we had never converted, by the time the single-class party members hit 20 my PC would have been 15/15 - fighting as a 15th level fighter, casting as a 15th level mage (8th level spells). This "feels" like the right balance the Magus should aim for - fewer special abilities, more spells, but shy of 9th level.
To compare, the Eldritch Knight hits +16 BAB and 9th level spells pretty easily: Fighter 2 / Wizard 8 / EK 10 (BAB 16, CL 17). Even the poorer Fighter 4 / Wizard 6 / EK 10 is at (BAB 17, CL 15) beats the Magus with 8th level spells and a host of special abilities.
So, a Magus with spells that go up to 8th level and medium BAB would fit the "classic" fighter-mage that was easily achievable in 2e.
I suppose the alternative would be to keep 6th level spells and increase BAB to full, but that feels ~off~ for a secondary combatant.
Director of Games
|
Let me just straighten something out here real quick.
There is no way that this class is going to be as good at combat as classes dedicated to combat (fighter/barbarian/etc). Its not going to have a full bab, that is just too good for the other perks of this class. That said, we still want an effective class, so adding powers to give it the right boosts at the right time is all well and good and pretty much exactly what we are working on. Its all about focus. This class, above all others, could be a terrible scene stealer, with an answer to every problem. We want it to shine, just not at the expense of everyone else at the table.
Its a fine line to walk.. but that is why we playtest.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
(2) Casting an attack spell in one round and then channeling it through a sword next round is equivalent in terms of action investment and effect to casting an attack spell normally and then attacking normally next round. It's just that the Magus has a worse chance of delivering the attack spell since touch attacks are much more accurate than weapon attacks. The fact that almost all touch spells are missing from the Magus spell list just makes this worse.
From what I have heard about this, having not looked at it yet, I agree. This sounds like a moronic mechanic.
I will look at the class this afternoon. You've all been warned.
This sounds like a moronic mechanic.
Stay classy.
I was rewriting the monk and I realized that by having the monk use his wisdom as the attack modifier it cut down on MAD, so maybe this class could use intelligence as the attack modifier instead of strength.
Let me just straighten something out here real quick.
There is no way that this class is going to be as good at combat as classes dedicated to combat (fighter/barbarian/etc). Its not going to have a full bab, that is just too good for the other perks of this class. That said, we still want an effective class, so adding powers to give it the right boosts at the right time is all well and good and pretty much exactly what we are working on. Its all about focus. This class, above all others, could be a terrible scene stealer, with an answer to every problem. We want it to shine, just not at the expense of everyone else at the table.
Its a fine line to walk.. but that is why we playtest.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This is exactly the vibe I got from the balance of Spell Combat at low levels (as mentioned in my EK vs Magus thread. He needs his friends to help in order for it to be awesome, and I think that's the right way to go about it.
This sounds like a moronic mechanic.Stay classy.
Not having read it, I can say it could go up to "could use work but ok" or down to "monumentally idiotic."
Depends how it works. No one has really expounded upon the details of how spell damage works in conjunction to weapon damage.Of course, that doesn't necessarily explain why the mechanic requires two standard actions in the first place.
|
Creative Director
|
From what I have heard about this, having not looked at it yet, I agree. This sounds like a moronic mechanic.
I will look at the class this afternoon. You've all been warned.
When you do, really REALLY try to frame your feedback in a way that doesn't feel antagonistic or childish or hostile. Words like "moronic" are not a good choice. If you're looking to get banned for trolling or harassment, though, keep doing what you've been doing. You have been warned.
This sounds like a moronic mechanic.Stay classy.
Given the source, that was classy.
Yeah, I know. The irony pains me too.
There is a first time for everything.
When you do, really REALLY try to frame your feedback in a way that doesn't feel antagonistic or childish or hostile. Words like "moronic" are not a good choice. If you're looking to get banned for trolling or harassment, though, keep doing what you've been doing. You have been warned.From what I have heard about this, having not looked at it yet, I agree. This sounds like a moronic mechanic.
I will look at the class this afternoon. You've all been warned.
God forbid I say a game mechanic only sounds moronic.
Hey, we are we going to go look through the forums and ban everyone crapping on WotC and 4e?
|
|
Speaking as a parapalegic, I would appreciate a little more care and sensitivity in choosing your anologies.
I am sorry about that, I was utterly oblivious to the offensive aspect of my statement.
There is no uber class that will give you a full BAB and full spellcasting, allowing you to "god-mode" the game.
Nobody suggested such a travesty. The Ranger and Paladin demonstrate that full BAB and a thin trickle of spellcasting make for well-rounded and balanced melee characters.
There is no way that this class is going to be as good at combat as classes dedicated to combat
Clearly, a 3/4 BAB class should never be as good at combat as full-BAB classes, that much is certain.
My main point is that there already exist two arcane 3/4 BAB classes, which are largely redundant with the Magus (and generally more desirable, I would think). These classes do not need to be in melee to use their class features, and are therefore much more likely to be worthwhile. The raw spellcasting potentials of Bard, Summoner and Magus appear quite equivalent, with all three likely relying on Grease, Glitterdust, and Haste for most of a typical scenario. An arcane full-BAB class would better fill a new niche in the game.
My other point is that the class features of the Magus, which set him apart from the Bard and Summoner, are hugely dissapointing. Would you rather have the ability to summon an eidolon and a number of monsters, the ability to buff the entire party and excel at a huge number of skills, or the ability to waste magical and martial resources simultaneously for negligible gain?
And finally, the name Magus is a misnomer. It means mage in Latin. Wizards and Sorcerers are mages. This class is different. Even though the 3.5 gish class names like Swordmage, Spellsword, Hexblade, Duskblade, Bladesinger etc are probably copyright-protected, I'm sure we could come up with dozens of more fitting names. Spellwielder, Battlemage, Channeler etc... though given the fact that Paizo went with "Oracle" despite a dozen better suggestions from the community, I have little hopes.
|
|
...
Also not being able to select one more than once.....
For example Still magic is good but 1/day forever!
I think that needs a little tweaking....
...
Exactly! If my choice is between something that works once a day and something that works more often but isn't as nice an effect I'm going to go with more often every time. Silent spell isn't so much of an "I Win" button that you couldn't have it two or three or 3+Int mod times a day.
Exactly! If my choice is between something that works once a day and something that works more often but isn't as nice an effect I'm going to go with more often every time. Silent spell isn't so much of an "I Win" button that you couldn't have it two or three or 3+Int mod times a day....
Also not being able to select one more than once.....
For example Still magic is good but 1/day forever!
I think that needs a little tweaking....
...
Excellent point.
Of course how often are you Silencing Spells?Still Spell has slightly more uses in a combat scenario, but really, how often would you be using it?
In role-playing scenarios and non-combat scenarios, they both can be put to use more often, but at that point, who cares how often you can do it as long as it is less than "always?"
I find the class to be, overall, well designed (taking into account that I've only looked at it and it's still beta), with some minor concerns (mainly MAD; something like a Swashbuckler's Intelligence to damage would help, though I'd also prefer to see them as something spontaneous, if only as an alternate archetype or something... and the shortage of touch spells in the game, paired with the fact that the Magus doesn't get a great many of them, the first I noticed being Touch of Idiocy...).
OP, you focus largely on melee, yet you forget one of the largest aspects of power in the game. The action economy. Magi get extra actions, which is nothing to scoff at. At first level, you can make your normal attack and get a Shocking Grasp off as a free action. The ability to cast True Strike on yourself (or later, Improved Invisibility), then attack in the same round (and still have your swift action to play with as well as things to use it on) is a significant benefit in combat. Or just Grease one set of orcs while stabbing another orc. Meanwhile, Arcane Weapon can go a long way to make up for relatively limited combat ability, shoring up damage while [Greater] Magic Weapon shores up your weapon's enhancement bonus so'st you can hit people and have it actually be relevant.
I gotta say, this class has some real potential.
|
God forbid I say a game mechanic only sounds moronic.Hey, we are we going to go look through the forums and ban everyone crapping on WotC and 4e?
It is easy to express your dislike or disapproval of a particular mechanic or design decision without using words that can be construed as insulting.
Crafting criticism in such a way that it will be examined and weighed for its value rather than discarded as the rantings of an immature child with no social skills may take more time, but as it's also more effective, it may well be worth the effort.
So there isn't going to be a full-BAB/d10 class that's also a full caster (using the Sor/Wiz list) that gains an extra standard action each round so he can cast as a standard and full-attack in a single turn?
If there is, can we call it "Ninja"?
No, you're talking about Lightning Warrior, the class that truly sacrifices power for flavor!
So there isn't going to be a full-BAB/d10 class that's also a full caster (using the Sor/Wiz list) that gains an extra standard action each round so he can cast as a standard and full-attack in a single turn?
If there is, can we call it "Ninja"?
-Skeld
EDIT: Parts of this thread make me chuckle.
It should fight using Katanorz(16-20, 2d20) and lazzzzzors(save or die dc 10+users HD+Dex)and wear tench coats(100% mischance).
Oh and they are all lesbian stripper witches. ;)
Let me just straighten something out here real quick.
There is no way that this class is going to be as good at combat as classes dedicated to combat (fighter/barbarian/etc). Its not going to have a full bab, that is just too good for the other perks of this class. That said, we still want an effective class, so adding powers to give it the right boosts at the right time is all well and good and pretty much exactly what we are working on. Its all about focus. This class, above all others, could be a terrible scene stealer, with an answer to every problem. We want it to shine, just not at the expense of everyone else at the table.
Its a fine line to walk.. but that is why we playtest.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I appreciate it, Jason, believe me. As someone active in all the [dirty word that rhymes with fish] threads on these boards I know how difficult and contentious it can be. I will try this with a light touch, as not to end up like my learned friend Cartigan.
Most things look pretty alright...except the main two mechanics. I think spellstrike will work fine, and not be overpowered, if it allows you to make a standard attack as part of the spell. The penalty for attacking a creature's full AC vs. touch AC, on top of the concentration check to cast defensively and the inability to use 2H weapons to dish greater damage, is CERTAINLY enough of a penalty to balance the menial extra die or three of damage. It also needs to be resolved whether the touch spell can crit and if so if it uses the channeling weapon's crit range/modifier.
Spell Combat is too much of a penalty, and since this is the class's main shtick being unable to pull it off more than 25% of the time is pretty unacceptable. I think treating the spell as an off-hand weapon is an elegant solution, but the penalties unlike TWF can't be mitigated by feats. Taking a -4 to hit ON TOP of attacking something's real AC, ON TOP of having MAD built into the class ON TOP of having a medium BAB makes this guy laughable in actual melee--which is clearly what he was designed for. So much so that his class abilities restrict him to melee, not allowing for the versatility of even other medium-BAB combatants.
Look. In the end the whole point of this class or indeed having a F/Mu base class is to be able to play the archetype from level 1, no? The Magus levels out and flies straight, and seems playable at about level 8 or so...but so does a multiclass Wiz/Ftr/EK. Then what's the point? If the class isn't functional at lower tier play, then why even create it?
Again, I appreciate what you've tried to do and I think you have a good start, but I believe you're being too timid as not to alarm the people who will cry imbalance without playing it. As it is written, and mind you ONLY at low-mid levels (1-7) it is an incredibly weak class that fails to do the only thing it is designed to--mix martial combat with spellcasting.
Good day
-Meatrace
|
|
@Viletta: You make some good points, given that actions are the hardest currency in the game. However, ...
At first level, you can make your normal attack and get a Shocking Grasp off as a free action.
You can always get off Shocking Grasp as a free action, and with a higher chance of hitting that with your sword.
Or just Grease one set of orcs while stabbing another orc.
Correction: Get a chance to grease one set of orcs while ineptly stabbing at another orc that is about to hit you for most of your hitpoints.
I'd rather Grease a set of orcs with no chance of spell failure and with a high DC from a safe distance and forego the slim chance of doing an extra 1d8+2 damage, thank you. Alternately, I'd rather stab an orc to death, and kill him, and have him die from it, and shrug off the other orc's attack with a grunt.
Meanwhile, Arcane Weapon can go a long way to make up for relatively limited combat ability, shoring up damage while [Greater] Magic Weapon shores up your weapon's enhancement bonus so'st you can hit people and have it actually be relevant.
Arcane Weapon is quite nice, I haven't paid that part enough attention so far. I'm not so fond of Greater Magic Weapon with a -3 penalty to caster level, but YMMV.
mainly MAD; something like a Swashbuckler's Intelligence to damage would help
There is Arcane Strike, but it's a feat tax. Should be a bonus feat for the class, if anything.
Somebody mentioned scene-stealing -- could you elaborate? I can't imagine a scene that could be stolen by a Magus better than by another character. Sure, they could succeed at casting and attacking the the same round, but that would be akin to critting with a pick. It's nice when it happens, but it's rather unlikely to happen.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
When you do, really REALLY try to frame your feedback in a way that doesn't feel antagonistic or childish or hostile. Words like "moronic" are not a good choice. If you're looking to get banned for trolling or harassment, though, keep doing what you've been doing. You have been warned.From what I have heard about this, having not looked at it yet, I agree. This sounds like a moronic mechanic.
I will look at the class this afternoon. You've all been warned.
God forbid I say a game mechanic only sounds moronic.
Hey, we are we going to go look through the forums and ban everyone crapping on WotC and 4e?
If they are being giant dicks, sure.
When you do, really REALLY try to frame your feedback in a way that doesn't feel antagonistic or childish or hostile. Words like "moronic" are not a good choice. If you're looking to get banned for trolling or harassment, though, keep doing what you've been doing. You have been warned.From what I have heard about this, having not looked at it yet, I agree. This sounds like a moronic mechanic.
I will look at the class this afternoon. You've all been warned.
God forbid I say a game mechanic only sounds moronic.
Hey, we are we going to go look through the forums and ban everyone crapping on WotC and 4e?
If they are being giant dicks, sure.
+1
|
Creative Director
|
When you do, really REALLY try to frame your feedback in a way that doesn't feel antagonistic or childish or hostile. Words like "moronic" are not a good choice. If you're looking to get banned for trolling or harassment, though, keep doing what you've been doing. You have been warned.From what I have heard about this, having not looked at it yet, I agree. This sounds like a moronic mechanic.
I will look at the class this afternoon. You've all been warned.
God forbid I say a game mechanic only sounds moronic.
Hey, we are we going to go look through the forums and ban everyone crapping on WotC and 4e?
I have no idea why you felt the need to bring up edition war garbage. But I do know that the vast majority of your posts strike me as antagonistic and confrontational. I've seen posts by you that are not (your last post in this thread about silent spells is a great example), so I know you have the ability to interact on these boards in a non-caustic manner. I just wish that was the norm.
In any event, there's no need to belabor the point or continue arguing with me. Just leave the attitude at home when you post here and we'll all be fine.
If I think an arbitrary, inanimate mechanic sounds moronic, I am going to say so. If you find that personally offensive, you are too embedded in the system to judge objectively.
I see this class as the arcane inquisitor and Medium BAB is fine. I think the penalties he gets for spell combat should be reduced however. -4 to attacks means he hits 25% - 30% less often than a full BAB character after you take into account the difference in BAB. That's only a 35% chance to hit at level 7 Assuming arcane weapon +1, a 17 str, weapon focus, and a 20 AC which should be about average for CR 7 monsters.
If it was brought down to -2 then you would still be missing more often than hitting at 45%
Just to breakdown other levels...
2nd level (16 Str, +1 BAB, 14 AC)
35% chance to hit at -4 penalty
45% chance at a -2.
4th level (17 Str, +3 BAB, +1 WF, +1 arcane weapon, vs. A 15 AC)
45% chance to hit at -4.
55% at a -2 penalty
This is the level where spell combat works best.
12 lvl (20 Str, +9 BAB, +2 WF and greater WF, +3 Arcane weapon, 27 AC)
55% chance at -2 to hit
60% chance at -1.
Again this is the level where Spell combat works best. The change will make it more viable at low levels.
I have no problem with a medium BAB, in theory. I really have to get down into the class.
Now, the -4 thing for TWF with spell-wielding sounds somewhat like my forehead when I hit it with the palm of my hand. Though its hard to say from the off-hand analysis and commentary instead of a personal look
Personally, I can't see why the class needs spells like mount, unseen servant, floating disk, etc. I DO NOT think that those are useless at all, however, I don't think they make sense on this list. This is a class that is intended to be in melee combat while tossing spells around.
I don't see the class as a replacement for a fighter, but perhaps in a party where no one chooses to play an arcane caster, the magus would allow some counterspelling and dispelling (and maybe other aspects of arcane magic that I am missing) that the party might otherwise lack. This book is "Ultimate Magic" not "Ultimate Combat" afterall, so if anything, I expect the class to be more magically inclined.
Being that combat is the theme here, doing away with the more utilitarian spells would narrow the niche filled by the class, and in doing so eliminate some of the problems with choose what spells to prepare. Otherwise, the class should be a spontaneous casting class. I understand that there might be some hesitation towards making yet another off-casting class that isn't a prepared caster, but again, going with the theme, it doesn't make a lot of sense for a martially minded mage to have such a lack of flexibility when tactical combat is all about flexibility.
"We're fighting shambling mounds? My damage spells are electricity and fire today. I didn't have enough slots to plug combat buffs in. FML."
EDIT: It took me wayyy too long to write this post. I find meatrace's post to pretty much sum up my thinking and in a far more concise manner, with the exception of the spell list "problem." I really want to see Spell Combat tweaked because I'm super-stoked to see it in action and working.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
If I think an arbitrary, inanimate mechanic sounds moronic, I am going to say so. If you find that personally offensive, you are too embedded in the system to judge objectively.
I think everyone would respect your opinion a lot more if it was stated less harshly, sure, but also if you were basing it on actually having read the mechanic in question rather than "this sounds stupid."
That coupled with the "you have been warned" nonsense at the end of your last post just reminded a lot of us how antagonistic your posts tend to be in general, and there you have it.
Please try to ramp down the antagonism a little bit. Not for the sake of our egos (which can take it), but for the sake of the community.
Personally, I look forward to your analysis of the class based on having read it and playtested it.
So thanks for "warning" us that you're on the job! :)
The -4 attack penalty on the melee attack when using Spell Combat(ex) feels too heavy considering that BAB is already medium. Something akin to TWF (-2/-2) feels right.
Ahh Twilight beat me too it. Damn iPhone taking too long to type and look things up...
|
|
@Meatrace: Thanks for the clear wording, this is what I was getting at. I haven't really thought about levels 10+ since I basically nevery play there (my LoF paladin just leveled up to 11 while I was away for a session -- never been above 10 before!).
Lightning Warrior: Nice concept, but a bit too roleplay-heavy for me. I'd find the lack of familiar crippling.
@Paizo Lords: I'm glad to see this thread getting attention from you, but would you mind addressing the post topic once in a while? ;)
I think everyone would respect your opinion a lot more if it was stated less harshly, sure, but also if you were basing it on actually having read the mechanic in question rather than "this sounds stupid."
Which is why I said "sounds" instead of "is." Had I read the mechanic, I would have switched to the concrete "is stupid" instead of the non concrete "sounds stupid."
That coupled with the "you have been warned" nonsense at the end of your last post just reminded a lot of us how antagonistic your posts tend to be in general, and there you have it.
Which was a joke. Some one got it.
Personally, I look forward to your analysis of the class based on having read it and playtested it.
My chance of playtesting it is none, but I can provide some editing and breakdown of abilities as I believe they would statistically work at least.
PS. I suck at statistics.