How about giving the Magus the Wizard spell list up to 6th level and keeping the medium BAB, that should make things even.
That honestly is a really terrible idea, the spell list is both to help the magues{his levels do not match the wiz/sorc} and a sort of check to make sure he doesn't brake a spell not meant to work with powers a wizard does not have.
That honestly is a really terrible idea, the spell list is both to help the magues{his levels do not match the wiz/sorc} and a sort of check to make sure he doesn't brake a spell not meant to work with powers a wizard does not have.How about giving the Magus the Wizard spell list up to 6th level and keeping the medium BAB, that should make things even.
Well either the Magus gets that, a huge swath of special abilities, or a full BAB, or it's just going to be a really lame class to play. I honestly can't see why anyone would not choose Duskblade or an Eldritch Knight over the current state the Magus is in.
I heavily disagree, I do not want to see full BAB, I sure as hell dont want to see full wiz/sorc list and as to why ya don't play a duskblade, simple your GM has to allow it before ya can play it.
|
Well, the Duskblade had full BAB, and it wasn't overpowered at all compared to the other classes. They had a severely limited spell selection, though: weapon buffs, touch spells, small cone spells, ray spells, and very few utility and movement spells. Though, unlike the Magus, it can spontaneously cast spells. The Magus has the drawback of needing to prepare his spells.
Does the Magus have a wider spell selection? Actually, it's being given it's own spell list (I detest unique spell lists, but whatever).
Personally, we have the Eldritch Knight PrC, and that's only losing a couple of BAB and having access to ALL Wizard spells. Whereas the Magus has a specific set of spells.
How about giving the Magus the Wizard spell list up to 6th level and keeping the medium BAB, that should make things even.
The duskblade's spell list could hardly be called a spell list. Which is why full BAB + the "spell list" made it still pretty weak.
Actually, I want the magus to have BETTER then wizard spell list for their purpose. I think they should be able to cast giantform 1 as a 5th level spell and 2 as a 6th. Kinda like what the bard does some of the higher arcane spells that fit the bard. Also some of the spells from divine that fit should be tossed in as well.
And prepared caster is NOT a drawback.
|
|
Well either the Magus gets that, a huge swath of special abilities, or a full BAB, or it's just going to be a really lame class to play. I honestly can't see why anyone would not choose Duskblade or an Eldritch Knight over the current state the Magus is in.That honestly is a really terrible idea, the spell list is both to help the magues{his levels do not match the wiz/sorc} and a sort of check to make sure he doesn't brake a spell not meant to work with powers a wizard does not have.How about giving the Magus the Wizard spell list up to 6th level and keeping the medium BAB, that should make things even.
Because the duskblade is REALLY weak. Their spell list makes them so.
The EK is better before level 6 and after level 13. The magus rocks the EK in the sweet spot levels of 7-12. I would honestly like to see the magus boosted at lower levels a bit.
Well the duskblade list had what 25 spell in all? I mean grand total of 25 and caped at level 5 {I think it had like 3 or 4 level 5 spells total}
The Magues however has 139 {20 of em level 6].
Edit: I went back and counted brake down for the dusk blade was
1:6 spells
2:7 spells
3:8 spells
4:2 spells
5:2 spells
Total spells on the spell list is 25
|
Honestly, I think that people are deriding the magus' 3/4 BAB a bit much. In actual play, I've found that 3/4 BAB characters are entirely playable as warrior-types. My big problem is making the magus a front-liner without medium armor right away and no AC-boosters like the monk. Personally, I'd like the magus to get light and medium armor from the get-go, and make heavy armor a magus arcana instead of a standard ability.
Jeremy Puckett
If its full BAB, half caster he should get spells just as soon as any other half caster does. Not a single moment sooner. If you want spells from the get go, you do not want a half caster.
So not a half caster,Like the paladin or ranger. Who do not gain cantrips at level 1 or at all.
At this point Jason has acknowledged he has seen the requests for a full bab paladin/ranger equivalent but isn't currently focused on it. So let's focus on the task at hand and see if we can't make it work.
Mechanically everyone keeps referring to the duskblades arcane channeling ability when discussing spellstrike. While I see the similarities I think they were trying to separate the two abilities. I see the magus as someone who loads there weapon up before hand rather than channeling spells on the fly.
Kortz suggested in this thread a change to arcane strike that didn't involve channeling at all. I like the idea but it seems to rooted in the rogues sneak attack and is just a damage increase able to bypass certain DR. I propose something similar that involves granting the weapon abilities a number of rounds per day, similar to a barbarians rage mechanic. These would be abilities that could be used 3+int modifier rounds per day.
Examples:
Fatiguing strike: When you make a successful melée attack against an opponent he must make a fortitude save or be fatigued 1/round per Caster level. Ala touch of fatigue.
Paralyzingly Blow: When you make a successful melée attack against an opponent he must make a will save equal to DC or be paralyzed for 1/round per caster level. Each round on it's turn the subject may attempt a new save to end the effect. "essentially hold person"
Make the DC's static or scaling for balance. These abilities are examples and are arbitrary. I'm not saying they are balanced in any way but are merely suggestion to show an idea.
I've also stated in various threads that I love spell combat and think the penalties should be reduced to make it viable at early levels. At higher levels honestly I don't care if the penalties stay as long as the ability is useful when you get it. A -2 to hit and a concentration check with no penalties would be ideal. Then remove improved spell combat and greater spell combat and let the penalty stay at all levels if need be. After all a two-weapon fighter never loses his -2 to attacks.
It's a long post but what does everyone think?
So not a half caster,Like the paladin or ranger. Who do not gain cantrips at level 1 or at all.
Fine. It's not a half-caster, it's a 53.7% caster.
Something like that was brought up ages back. Having it use an set enrgy type and usable say 3+int per day that deals an extra 1d6/2 levels might work out ok as well.
So not a half caster,Like the paladin or ranger. Who do not gain cantrips at level 1 or at all.Exactly. You understand my point. Not a half caster "like a ranger or paladin." A half caster who uses the same Spells per Day numbers as rangers and paladins, yet also gets cantrips on 1st level (and has a caster level equal to his class level).
sigh as always you guys are not wanting a half caster, your wanting something better,
To me its simple. Full BAB, small list, half caster no spells at level 1
Or 3/4th BAB, bard caster spell at level 1
Your wanting both ,Full BAB and spells from go.I can not agree with that. You take the whole package or you do not. If ranger and paladin do not gain spells at level 1 other half casters should not.
Something like that was brought up ages back. Having it use an set enrgy type and usable say 3+int per day that deals an extra 1d6/2 levels might work out ok as well.
I linked the thread in my post where it was brought up :)
I would like to see the abilities be more spell like rather than a generic damage increase though.
Something like that was brought up ages back. Having it use an set enrgy type and usable say 3+int per day that deals an extra 1d6/2 levels might work out ok as well.I linked the thread in my post where it was brought up :)
I would like to see the abilities be more spell like rather than a generic damage increase though.
When I played with it, how I did it was you choose {fire,cold,acid or electricity} and a number of times per day {3+int} you could infuse your weapon, which as I said gave ya extra damage of the type {1d6/2 levels} Which I felt gave him something interesting to do but not unlimited.
|
|
Honestly, I think that people are deriding the magus' 3/4 BAB a bit much. In actual play, I've found that 3/4 BAB characters are entirely playable as warrior-types. My big problem is making the magus a front-liner without medium armor right away and no AC-boosters like the monk. Personally, I'd like the magus to get light and medium armor from the get-go, and make heavy armor a magus arcana instead of a standard ability.
Jeremy Puckett
I could agree with this. It feels like they should be using some kind of plate armor, and breastplate would be the starting point for that. I've no problem with making both armor proficiencies into Magus Arcanas though either, but Medium from 1st level shouldn't pump them up too considerably as it is hard to afford at lower levels.
It would also be neat to see an arcane magic user with reduced speed from armor.
Another issue that is, well an issue for me anyway, weapons. The spell strike ability is something we have seen before. Now it is different, but is only useful for single weapons. Which leaves out an Iconic magicians tool/weapon, the staff.
I honestly would not mind some sort of adjustment allowing a Magus to use a staff, yeah I know it is a two ended weapon, instead of swords or maces.
Just a thought.
To me its simple. Full BAB, small list, half caster no spells at level 1
Or 3/4th BAB, bard caster spell at level 1
Because the only things any class can do are BAB and spells. You can't create a class that has slightly better spellcasting than the paladin by offsetting it in non-spellcasting, non-BAB features inferior to those of the paladin, because non-BAB, non-spellcasting features don't exist.
Another issue that is, well an issue for me anyway, weapons. The spell strike ability is something we have seen before. Now it is different, but is only useful for single weapons. Which leaves out an Iconic magicians tool/weapon, the staff.
I honestly would not mind some sort of adjustment allowing a Magus to use a staff, yeah I know it is a two ended weapon, instead of swords or maces.
Just a thought.
I second this. Using a staff should awesome.
I second this. Using a staff should awesome.Another issue that is, well an issue for me anyway, weapons. The spell strike ability is something we have seen before. Now it is different, but is only useful for single weapons. Which leaves out an Iconic magicians tool/weapon, the staff.
I honestly would not mind some sort of adjustment allowing a Magus to use a staff, yeah I know it is a two ended weapon, instead of swords or maces.
Just a thought.
How Bout a Magus can craft a Hybrid weapon which performs like a melee weapon but has several spells and 10 charges like a staff.
Edit: I went back and counted brake down for the dusk blade was1:6 spells
2:7 spells
3:8 spells
4:2 spells
5:2 spellsTotal spells on the spell list is 25
This is wrong. The complete Duskblade spell list is on page 24, not on the list of new Duskblade spells (which is what it seems you were looking at).
The Duskblade has:
0th: 4 spells
1st: 18 spells
2nd: 19 spells
3rd: 13 spells
4th: 9 spells
5th: 8 spells
Are, you are correct, not sure what I was thinking there.
See. No they are not the only things a class can do. However you choose a half caster then your saddled with its limitations. It is not a great caster, its limited and gets no cantrips. If you want spells at level 1, then don't ask for a half caster like a ranger or a paladin.
No, you are not. ;-)
|
So,someone just pointed this Class out to me,as an alternative to my attempt to create a viable Class for This Guy
http://wyrd-games.net/shop/product.php?productid=16306&cat=262&page =1
It's not easy or anywhere near Optimized to try and figure out what to with a Gnome with a Bastard/Greatsword... I am more about ascetics than Min/Maxing as a player, however,and I wanted to use that Mini.
Anyways, I have been trying out ideas, settling on an Oracle of Battle, though he isn't 'awesome' at all...
Magus looks cool other than the massive lack of TOUCH Spells. As mentioned my several folks... Essentially, the only spell that you have is Shocking Grasp, until Level...er, I looked through the spells into Level 5, and...um. Touch Spells, guys?
You could rename this guy the 'Shocking Grasper'.
Give him some Touch spells, and I think it is a viable playtest... I'll still roll him up, but I am already sort of bored,thinking about my Shocking Grasping.
The ability to TWF a True Strike, then attack in the same round is awesome, however...
-Uriel
The magus is not _supposed_ to be as good as the front line fighters. It's a mix of fighter and wizard. Decent at doing both things, but not as good as a front-line fighter in melee. And they are not _supposed_ to be as good as a wizard/sorcerer at casting spells.
The magus will fill a secondary fighter role in combat, along with the rogue and the cleric. They should not be able to take as much punishment as the fighter/barbarian/ranger, etc, nor should they be expected to deal out as much damage. However, they can do very well as the secondary fighter and contribute well enough.
The magus will be secondary arcane casters who can lend a useful hand that way. They should not be as good as the wizard/sorcerer at firing out large amounts of massive damage spells. But they will definitely be complimentary.
Going up against creatures that are immune to spells? Sorry wizard and sorcerer. The magus can still contribute with melee combat and help out the fighters.
Going up against creatures that are hard to damage in melee or have huge damage reduction? Sorry fighters, your attacks are going to be much less effective. But, the magus can still contribute with spells.
The class is a balance, and should be that way.
The thought of going full BAB with 4-level casting, while interesting, is not really what I want this class to do. The delay in getting spells is pretty antithetical to the concept.I think at this point the consensus is "This is something we want in Ultimate Combat." I, at least, get that it's too late in the game to change the Magus now, but it's probably not too late to slip his more smackdown-minded cousin into the next book.
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.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think the suggestion to request a SEPARATE CLASS that is a 4-level caster arcane ranger/paladin analogue is the best thing to have come out of this thread.
The Magus is what it is. Cool. Let's go with that and test it out and see what works and what doesn't.
As for a different Arcknight or Stabracadabrist or whatever, perhaps that is something that could be considered for inclusion once work on Ultimate Combat begins. It does seem like an idea that has some support for development at some later time.
The Magus has a very open design. The fundamental problems can be fixed with new feats and/or spells. Right now we have very little to work with so it seems clunky and akward to play. A first level spell that gives a +4 to hit for a limited time or number of attacks would be a must have. If you look at the Inquisitors spell-lust you'll see some pretty cool spells that might've changed some minds about the class.
This thread is to address the problems. Low success rate at levels 1-7 is an obvious problem. I'm sure that'll be addressed before the Magus' full release.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Ya mean like I don't know an Ranger archetype or 2?
As for a different Arcknight or Stabracadabrist or whatever, perhaps that is something that could be considered for inclusion once work on Ultimate Combat begins. It does seem like an idea that has some support for development at some later time.
Actually... no.
I don't think swapping out 20 levels of class abilities ON TOP OF "oh btw you now have this alternate spell list, which is arcane and not divine" really qualifies as an archetype any more. There is nothing about the ranger's (or paladin's) inherent class abilities that really have any relevance to the proposed Full/4 Arcdude, from favored enemy to nature bond to quarry to hide in plain sight and on down the list.
As for what constitutes an archetype, even the most robustly rejiggered bard archetypes, for example, the Magician, Sandman, and Arcane Duelist, keep about half of the bard's basic class abilities, plus ALL of the bard's weapon, armor, skill, and spell lists.
The Full/4 Arcdude has no interest in half of the ranger's class abilities, or any of them.
The only similarities to ranger/paladin and the requested Full/4 class is:
1. Full BAB (including d10 HD)
2. 4-level casting starting at 4th level
3. Probably a good Fort save
4. Proficiency with martial weapons and some kind of armor (probably light to start with)
That's it. A hoped-for Full BAB/4-caster would be using the same structural bones as the ranger and paladin do, but nothing else in common with either of them.
I would point out that they would, of course, also gain some kind of interesting special abilities at 1st-3rd levels level in accord with their theme (paladin gets smite, detect evil, divine grace, lay on hands, etc.; ranger gets favored enemy, wild empathy, track, weapon style, favored terrain, endurance; arcdude gets something else, which would be something arcane-magic-flavored).
On this matter, the idea that "4-level casters shouldn't get spells before 4th level, PERIOD, which has been your stated position, okay.
I agree.
However, not all "magic stuff" need be spells per se. Note, for instance, that the paladin gets FIVE supernatural abilities AND a spell-like ability by the time they hit 3rd level. While the ranger's abilities in the same band are entirely non-magical, it's entirely reasonable and within precedent for the Full/4 Arcdude to have a considerable variety of actual magical abilities during the 3 levels prior to gaining spellcasting powers per se.
Honestly I just do not see the need. I really dislike needless base classes and yet another "stab folks with magic" to me is a needless class.
As much as archetypes can change a class I just do not see a need for a whole new class. A ranger to me is a good base, add in a few stackable archetypes. Replace the spell list in one{so it stacks with the others} and replace nature bond with a weapon bond or something and FE or FT with other arcane ability.
You will end up with something very unranger like, but with more customization. I just dont see a need for a new base class when the archetype mechanic works just as well without the need to clutter the already to many base class landscape
Another note a paladin as a subclass might be workable as well, not sure how I feel about that but mechanic wise it might be interesting as an arcane class.
|
The only similarities to ranger/paladin and the requested Full/4 class is:
1. Full BAB (including d10 HD)
2. 4-level casting starting at 4th level
3. Probably a good Fort save
4. Proficiency with martial weapons and some kind of armor (probably light to start with)That's it. A hoped-for Full BAB/4-caster would be using the same structural bones as the ranger and paladin do, but nothing else in common with either of them...
However, not all "magic stuff" need be spells per se. Note, for instance, that the paladin gets FIVE supernatural abilities AND a spell-like ability by the time they hit 3rd level. While the ranger's abilities in the same band are entirely non-magical, it's entirely reasonable and within precedent for the Full/4 Arcdude to have a considerable variety of actual magical abilities during the 3 levels prior to gaining spellcasting powers per se.
I agree.
What sort of things do we want an arcane martialist to do?
Ideas:
Protect himself with magic (like Trickster Cleric's Copycat ability, or Aburist's Protective Ward) - Especially useful due to lower AC with light armor (medium might be considered to start with, if there is no spellcasting whatsoever...it could just never increase, or it could include heavy at some point)
Move about the battlefield (Traveling Cleric's ability to ignore difficult terrain, Shadowdancer/Traveling Cleric's teleports, the ability to confer swim, climb, flight or burrowing speeds for similarly short periods)
Elemental Attacks (Some sort of Spell storing or spell strike or channeling is a possibility. Otherwise something like flame blade - it does a specific type of elemental damage, though the damage isn't increased over normal. Weapon enhancements such as the Paladin's divine bond or arcane archer's ability will be possible in the future too)
Arcane / Telekinetic Physical Attacks (Hand of the Apprentice, Spiritual Weapon, or Telekinesis based maneuvers, up close or at a distance. In the version I made a third tier analogue of Combat Arcana allowed, as a full round action, any one combat maneuver to be attempted telekinetically to all targets chosen within 30' of the caster - spell resistance applied and the CMB was calculated with intelligence rather than strength - but I thought it was a cinematically cool ability)
Interfere with Enemy Casters/Spells (Some sort of dispelling strike or access to disruptive and spellbreaker are all good fits)
Like Detect Evil for Paladins, having detect magic and prestidigitation as spell like abilities usable at will would give a bit of an arcane feel to the arcane martialist without actual spells.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Honestly I just do not see the need. I really dislike needless base classes and yet another "stab folks with magic" to me is a needless class.
What is the other base class that stabs people magically?
The paladin, right.
He's really the only one who does.
Bards can sortakindaish do it if you do it just right, but it's a long walk from here to there and not really playing to their strengths.
As much as archetypes can change a class I just do not see a need for a whole new class. A ranger to me is a good base, add in a few stackable archetypes.
Stackable archetypes?
I take that to mean archetypes that trade out different things, so you could take more than one, right?
So... adding 2 or possibly 3 different archetypes together to mine out a class' abilities and replace them entirely would be an easier solution than simply creating a new base class?
It seems like both of them get to the same place, but one takes kind of a detour through "ALL of this, but REPLACE all of this with all of that," vs. just starting with "all of that."
To me, creating 1 base class is the simpler and cleaner solution. YMMV.
Replace the spell list in one{so it stacks with the others} and replace nature bond with a weapon bond or something and FE or FT with other arcane ability.
The trouble is, you have 20 levels worth of abilities to swap out. You don't just want to swap out some of them. You want to swap out all of them.
You will end up with something very unranger like, but with more customization. I just dont see a need for a new base class when the archetype mechanic works just as well without the need to clutter the already to many base class landscape
I would agree that, with enough archetypes, you could make a ranger un-ranger-like, if you got rid of all of its legacies. I disagree that it works just as well or that it creates less clutter to the class landscape. On that point, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Another note a paladin as a subclass might be workable as well, not sure how I feel about that but mechanic wise it might be interesting as an arcane class.
The paladin is actually much closer than a ranger to the Full/4-caster mechanically speaking, because unlike the ranger he DOES get a bunch of magical stuff prior to getting spells.
You just have to peel out all of the alignment/code stuff, in addition to all of the mechanics.
Ya mean like I don't know an Ranger archetype or 2?
As for a different Arcknight or Stabracadabrist or whatever, perhaps that is something that could be considered for inclusion once work on Ultimate Combat begins. It does seem like an idea that has some support for development at some later time.Actually... no.
I don't think swapping out 20 levels of class abilities ON TOP OF "oh btw you now have this alternate spell list, which is arcane and not divine" really qualifies as an archetype any more. There is nothing about the ranger's (or paladin's) inherent class abilities that really have any relevance to the proposed Full/4 Arcdude, from favored enemy to nature bond to quarry to hide in plain sight and on down the list.
As for what constitutes an archetype, even the most robustly rejiggered bard archetypes, for example, the Magician, Sandman, and Arcane Duelist, keep about half of the bard's basic class abilities, plus ALL of the bard's weapon, armor, skill, and spell lists.
The Full/4 Arcdude has no interest in half of the ranger's class abilities, or any of them.
The only similarities to ranger/paladin and the requested Full/4 class is:
1. Full BAB (including d10 HD)
2. 4-level casting starting at 4th level
3. Probably a good Fort save
4. Proficiency with martial weapons and some kind of armor (probably light to start with)That's it. A hoped-for Full BAB/4-caster would be using the same structural bones as the ranger and paladin do, but nothing else in common with either of them.
I would point out that they would, of course, also gain some kind of interesting special abilities at 1st-3rd levels level in accord with their theme (paladin gets smite, detect evil, divine grace, lay on hands, etc.; ranger gets favored enemy, wild empathy, track, weapon style, favored terrain, endurance; arcdude gets something else, which would be something arcane-magic-flavored).
On this matter, the idea...
What about a Ranger subclass?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'd just like to know why you couldn't just have full BAB with 4 levels of casting, but have it start at level 1? I'm not seeing how the class would break.
Doing full BAB with 4 levels starting at level 4 seems kind of worthless, because you end up having to poke around for three levels doing some martially thing until you can finally start being the fighter/magic-user that everyone wants to be.
I still haven't read any compelling arguments that the Duskblade was broken or messed up the game in all of these years, and that had more than 4 levels of spells. Just take 4 levels and stretch it out over 20 levels, but give plenty of spells per day and I'm sure it'll be at most underpowered for high level play.
That way the class can jump into combat, do some fancy, yet limited, stabracadabra stuff and it should be fine.
I don't think it would be breakingly awful to do it that way.
I'm just saying that, from the point of view of structural consistency in the game and its classes, I think it makes the most sense to use the same model you already have (which is, the pal/rgr model).
Consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds... but I like hobgoblins. :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
What about a ranger subclass?
Now THIS, I think would work just fine. In fact, I think it's a great idea.
The arcknight (I like the sound of that) becomes to the ranger what the antipaladin is to the paladin.
Same bones and structure, but stripped to the ground and built back up.
Even if Paizo wants to avoid any more full-bore base classes in Ultimate Combat and beyond, this might be easily be a way to fit it in, again following the precedent already used with the antipaladin of a full-on class revision, something beyond the scope of an archetype, but not quite to the level of a base class (though the difference between them might be paper thin).
I like it!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think the suggestion to request a SEPARATE CLASS that is a 4-level caster arcane ranger/paladin analogue is the best thing to have come out of this thread.I don't know that adding yet another base class would work. The class features of the beta magus are the exact class features that an arcane half caster should have. As noted in my first post in this thread, you could use the beta magus class features almost exactly as written for a full BAB half caster class.
So making yet another arcane melee class in addition to the magus will either create a class that looks too similar to the magus, or create a class whose features are not thematically appropriate because the magus has already co-opted all of the relevant class abilities.
Pursuant to the above conversations upthread, I've revised my opinion since to now favor an anti-paladin-style subclass for the Full/4-caster. More than an archetype, less than a full-fledged base class (if only just). Append him to the ranger's chapter in Ultimate Combat like the Antipaladin got put in the Paladin chapter of the APG and I'm a happy camper.
Just one man's opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
(Incidentally, between 4th and 15th level, a half-caster that gets his signature spells one spell level early has access to all of the same signature spells as a three-quarter caster who doesn't get those spells one spell level early. A full BAB half caster could have access to many of the same spells available to a beta magus of the same level. The beta magus is really, really close to what a full BAB half caster magus would look like, even when it comes to spell access.)
But he doesn't look like him in the parts that matter *IF* your goal is to have him be a true fightery dude (who also uses arcane magic) - full BAB/d10 HD/good Fort/all martial weapons.
Also, he gets access to those spells... with 0 spell slots per day (plus stat mod); the 3/4-6 caster gets far more spells per day.
I've revised my opinion since to now favor an anti-paladin-style subclass for the Full/4-caster. ... Append him to the ranger's chapter in Ultimate Combat like the Antipaladin got put in the Paladin chapter of the APG and I'm a happy camper.Interesting thought. But why make it a ranger sub-class? Why not make it a magus sub-class? Call it a fighter-magus. Make it identical to the normal magus class, but with different BAB and spell progressions. Add cantrips at 1st level.
Because a sub class should not change BAB or items like spell progression. Once ya do that your not talking sub class. That would be a brand new class with the same name.
who is trolling? The topic of this thread just drifted. That happens at times.
I'm really beginning to pity Jason. He probably came up with the core design for this class and now it is being absolutely ripped to shreds by the fans here.
Saying that I tend to agree with Jason that a full BAB, 4th lvl arcane caster class would have been more interesting for me personally, especially since Paizo had the wherewithal to break the mold and create a 6th lvl divine caster with the inquisitor.
As for the spellstrike/spell combat issue I think that the class needs to see some real action in playtests before it can be bagged. If after a month of people actually using the abilities in the game they still think they are no good, then they can post negative criticism. At the moment it seems to me that too many people aren't giving the class the chance it deserves.
I'm really beginning to pity Jason. He probably came up with the core design for this class and now it is being absolutely ripped to shreds by the fans here.
Saying that I tend to agree with Jason that a full BAB, 4th lvl arcane caster class would have been more interesting for me personally, especially since Paizo had the wherewithal to break the mold and create a 6th lvl divine caster with the inquisitor.
As for the spellstrike/spell combat issue I think that the class needs to see some real action in playtests before it can be bagged. If after a month of people actually using the abilities in the game they still think they are no good, then they can post negative criticism. At the moment it seems to me that too many people aren't giving the class the chance it deserves.
If he didn't want his work to be critically reviewed then he would have kept it private.
Oh wait, I forgot where I was. Anything posted by the devs here must only be met with applause and butt-kissing, and any who dare offer criticism must be shouted down forthwith.