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 b**@-kissing, and any who dare offer criticism must be shouted down forthwith.
Oh no. You misjudge me. He brought this entirely upon himself and consciously made the decision to do so (well Paizo did but he knows the consequences). That still doesn't mean I can't shed a tear for him or that people shouldn't pull their heads in until they've actually played the class. Criticism is entirely warranted as long as it's also backed up with cold hard facts (mathematical probability notwithstanding) and not just conjecture about how badly the class will perform.
What sort of things do we want an arcane martialist to do?
why don't we see how Duskblade fares:
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)
Lesser Deflect, Deflect, Resist Energy, obscuring mist, Crown of Protection, Protection from energy, Fire Shield, and Sonic Shield.
Lesser Deflect is awesome: immediate action, 1/3 caster Deflection bonus to AC vs 1 attack.Deflect: is same but a Shield bonus = 1/2 caster.
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)
has dimension hop, color spray, cause fear, expendious Retreats, Jump, Swift fly, Swift Invisibility, ray of exhuastion, dimension door,
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)
burning hands, Shocking grasp, Kelgore's fire bolt, Melf's acid arrow, Scorching ray, seekingh ray, doom scarab, energy surge, vampiric touch, channeled pyroblast, enervate, chain lightning disintegrate, and polar ray.
I missed the no save/sucks like Ray of enfeeblement (well it has a save in pathfinder).
Of course one of the things about the magus is the great unknown about his expanded spell list once Ultimate Magic comes out. I know the dev's don't reveal things like spells and spell lists in playtests, but with the magus us knowing what he has up his sleeve would make it much easier to properly assess abilities like spell strike and his overall spellcasting versatility.
Just saying Jason. ;-)
|
Scrapping the class is always an option, but a very unlikely one. 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 will keep the thought in mind, but right now, I am not going to consider it further.
Thanks for clarifying. Allow me to clarify my position too:
(1) I see now that my OP was misguided. I thought the concept of the Magus as written was fundamentally flawed, whereas in fact it just fills a different role than I expected and can most likely be made to work with some (significant) tweaking and playtesting.
(2) That said, I do not think this thread was unproductive because it demonstrated a lot of enthousiasm in the community for a full BAB/4-level casting class, which would fill a different role than the Magus (the frontliner role).
(3) Given that you acknowledge the inherent interest in an arcane full BAB/4-level casting class, is there a way we can cooperate with you and your co-designers do heighten the chances of such a class being included in Ultimate Magic or Ultimate Combat? This would require moving to a new thread, obviously, since the OP of this one has become obsolete.
As for the other posters...
A ranger is often a nature warrior but he is not always one. The only thing that makes a Ranger a Divine class is his spell list. The AGP already included an Archetype that took the Divine totally out, having a new one that simply swaps out the spell list is not a hard thing to do.
I heartily disagree. The many non-spell abilities of both the ranger and paladin are strongly flavored by nature/divine and cannot just be hammered into an arcane mold.
the only problem is such a class wouldn't work as a blaster which is what the Magus spell lists suggest it should be.
Blasting is thematic for the Magus -- even archetypical, with the classical sword in one hand, fire in the other hand image in mind. The full-BAB class we're talking about, however, should be focused on buff and defense spells. Look at the paladin and the ranger: They get no blast spells at all although the cleric and druid have them. The intention is that these classes will to damage with their full BAB instead. The spells are there to help them in subtle and flavorful ways.
So not a half caster,Like the paladin or ranger. Who do not gain cantrips at level 1 or at all.
Giving cantrips at 1st level is not breaking the spell progression rule at all. Cantrips are separate from real spells, as shown by the fact that they are mentioned as a class feature in all of the class tables whereas there is no corresponding class feature "1st-level spells". Finally, the "Arcknight's" cantrips could just be declared as (Sp) to prevent him from gaining a caster level until level 4th, thus preventing 1-level dipping as a replacement for 15 ranks of UMD.
In terms of power level, cantrips are extremely weak and do not in the least compare with Rage, Smite or Favored Enemy, even if they are at-will. They would have to be combined with a channeling ability (3+Int per day?) to measure up.
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.
This sounds nice in theory, but in practice there are still enough useful spells to be used against golems (conjuration, anyone?). Likewise, frontliners can punch through DR by just doing lots of damage. In those (rare) cases, just biting the bullet and doing your specialty despite the handicap is most likely more reliable and effective than having a half-assed "solution" for everything but never rising above that mediocrity even under normal conditions.
This is why I personally would prefer to play an "Arcknight" over a Magus. YMMV.
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.
That idea has nothing in its favor IMHO. You'd have to strip all features from the parent class (you might as well pick the fighter rather than the ranger!) and give it an entire new set of features, including a lot of fine print. A proper separate base class is the only way to do justice to this concept.
you are correct that the classes would be different (which is why I didn't mind the idea of two bases classes). Since that's not going to happen talking it up certainly doesn't fix the perceived problems with the magus. Perhaps there is room for this sort of idea in the archetypes however?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Oh wait, I forgot where I was. Anything posted by the devs here must only be met with applause and b&!#-kissing, and any who dare offer criticism must be shouted down forthwith.Frankly, I'm amazed any devs still read the forums with people like you on them. Behave or begone.
+1
Disagree =/= be a jerk, and not being a jerk in no way impedes the exercise of any poster's analytical and rhetorical brilliance.
This is why I personally would prefer to play an "Arcknight" over a Magus. YMMV.
Jason Nelson wrote:
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.
That idea has nothing in its favor IMHO. You'd have to strip all features from the parent class (you might as well pick the fighter rather than the ranger!) and give it an entire new set of features, including a lot of fine print. A proper separate base class is the only way to do justice to this concept.
I'd love a new base class myself. There is one in UM - the Magus. I think it would be reasonable to include one in UC - the Arcknight (yay!).
*BUT* Paizo central command has already voiced a desire to avoid creating lots of base classes. If that is still the case, then I think the next best solution is an anti-paladin-style subclass is a way of getting around that self-imposed limit while still being able to retool all 20 levels of abilities.
The APG is described as having 6 new base classes; really, it has 7, because of the anti-paladin. It's only not a "base class" on a technicality. All I'm saying is, if that is the technicality that must be used to get the Full/4-caster Arcknight slipped into Ultimate Combat, then by all that is good and magical let's use it.
New base class is the ideal solution to me.
But if we can GET a de facto base class using the anti-paladin exception, then I'll take it that way too.
(the reason to use the ranger body rather than fighter is the spell list already being built onto the class framework, plus personally I like the good Fort/Ref saves for the Arcknight)
I'd like to second the idea that Jason Nelson brought up about making an equivalent anti-paladin like arch-type for the ranger. That may be closer to the fighter-MU type that I'm looking for than what chassis the Magus is currently being built upon.
Oh wait, I forgot where I was. Anything posted by the devs here must only be met with applause and b&!#-kissing, and any who dare offer criticism must be shouted down forthwith.Frankly, I'm amazed any devs still read the forums with people like you on them. Behave or begone.
+1
Disagree =/= be a jerk, and not being a jerk in no way impedes the exercise of any poster's analytical and rhetorical brilliance.
This is why I personally would prefer to play an "Arcknight" over a Magus. YMMV.
Jason Nelson wrote:
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.
That idea has nothing in its favor IMHO. You'd have to strip all features from the parent class (you might as well pick the fighter rather than the ranger!) and give it an entire new set of features, including a lot of fine print. A proper separate base class is the only way to do justice to this concept.
I'd love a new base class myself. There is one in UM - the Magus. I think it would be reasonable to include one in UC - the Arcknight (yay!).
*BUT* Paizo central command has already voiced a desire to avoid creating lots of base classes. If that is still the case, then I think the next best solution is an anti-paladin-style subclass is a way of getting around that self-imposed limit while still being able to retool all 20 levels of abilities.
The APG is described as having 6 new base classes; really, it has 7, because of the anti-paladin. It's only not a "base class" on a technicality. All I'm saying is, if that is the technicality that must be used to get the Full/4-caster Arcknight slipped into Ultimate Combat, then by all that is good and magical let's use it.
New base class is the ideal solution to me.
But if we can GET a de facto base class using the anti-paladin exception, then I'll take it that way too.
(the reason to use the...
Which all of the reasons I suggested the subclass in the first place. Glad you liked the idea.
(the reason to use the ranger body rather than fighter is the spell list already being built onto the class framework, plus personally I like the good Fort/Ref saves for the Arcknight)
Not just that, personally the increased Ref save gives some interesting attack options, such as melee AoE that has possible blowback on the *Arcknight.* Aside from that it also means the Arcknight would be able to buddy up with AoE dropping full caster and possibly be able to take those hits. Combined Evasion 9th and Improved Evasion 16th, very much yes.
Some ideas to replace items on the Ranger;
• Hunter's Bond, familiar instead of animal. Wizard -3, Improved Familiar bonus feat at 6th
• Favored Enemy switch to an Arcane/elemental averaged damage equivalent, grantable to allies as Hunter's Bond option
• Spell list
• Wild Empathy and Track get replaced by Armored Casting in Medium armor.
• Woodland Stride, same ability but applied spells that make difficult terrain (pits) or hamper movement (grease).
• Camouflage, within 10 feet of area Illusions or magical obscurement effects, still works if other creature can see through them or pass will saves.
• HiPS within 10 feet of area illusion or magical obscurement.
• Swift Tracker, replace with can see through magical obscurement
Not so sure about Favored Terran, Quarry/mproved, or Master Hunter.
At early levels he wanders about putting elemental damage pain on things, using whatever combat style he goes for. Later he starts hanging out in his own or his arcane buddies obscurement or illusions and is a mean surprise for anyone think they've got it licked. Basically someone who can play nice inside Arcane battle control or dodge Arcane blasting.
|
|
[Ranger -> Arcknight Conversion]
I don't think your Woodland Stride, Camouflage, HiPS and Swift Tracker replacement suggestions work here, they're basically ranger abilities with a thin coat of arcane paint. They still feel huntery rather than arcany.
Seriously, the Antipaladin is not that different from the Paladin. Sure, some mechanics work differently, but they are nice mirror images of each other conceptually. In principle, the Antipaladin option could have been included in the Paladin write-up, just as the negative channeling option has been included in the Cleric write-up. It's not so much a change in concept as in scope. Conversely, you could never incorporate the Arcknight into the original Ranger class description because the concept is totally different.
In fact, if anything, it might make more sense as a subclass of the Fighter. At least you don't have to remove any flavor there before you add in the arcane flavor. The martial flavor is just toned down through the loss of feats and equipment specialization, but still present in the form of solid competence at arms. This cannot be said about Rangers and Paladins: The Arcknight is in no way whatsoever "a bit rangery" or "a bit paladinous".
|
|
In order to relieve the Magus forums, I've created a new thread for the petition to Paizo to create an Arcknight. It's here. Let's move over and close down this thread.
Oh wait, I forgot where I was. Anything posted by the devs here must only be met with applause and b&!#-kissing, and any who dare offer criticism must be shouted down forthwith.Frankly, I'm amazed any devs still read the forums with people like you on them. Behave or begone.
You're quite welcome to comb through my posts and point out where I at any point overstepped my bounds with regard to the devs. Pointing out the blatant groupthink+fanboyism of the community is an altogether different matter.
you know I was really excited with the concept of this character class and was going to use come monday for Pathfinder Society. The idea of adding extra damage from let's say flare or ray of frost to my sword attack sounded pretty cool. But when I started to look through the spell list I found "1" spell that I can use. Shocking Grasp. What the heck is the point to the magus, if we can't use touch spells. Even magic missile used to be ranged touch (but that's not in the description anymore.) I'm pretty sure this class needs a complete overhaul or allow for the spells on its spell list to be used for channeling through the sword regardless of what the range of them is. To have one spell being useful and the rest being cast at a distance, you guys at Paizo have pretty much handicapped the magus. Yeah I turned him into a great fighter lite (but was looking forward to being able to use flare and ray of frost).
Let me know when this gets fixed, cause my magus is going to be sitting on the sidelines watching the world go by.
Just to let you know the Magus' spell list is not complete. Jason has said that it will have more touch spells. Also magic missile was never a ranged touch spell, it was always autohit (unless the changed that in the PF beta rules).
What obscenity?
There's too many doucheorems to point out in the multiple threads within the forum and not enough actual playtesting results. Me? I'm CharOpping a batch of Orville Redenbacher. *nom* *nom* *nom* Mmmmmm Butter....
There's too many doucheorems to point out in the multiple threads within the forum and not enough actual playtesting results. Me? I'm CharOpping a batch of Orville Redenbacher. *nom* *nom* *nom* Mmmmmm Butter....
Class is released on Monday, most gaming groups meet on the weekend. Actually playtests in live games delayed 5 to 6 days from release. Character formulation, number crunching, and build making before. Flaws in class examined abstractly during that process and noted.
Unless someone wants to get together and try to build a Pathfinder agent based computer model to simulate a live gaming table, instant play test results will not be forth coming.
There's too many doucheorems to point out in the multiple threads within the forum and not enough actual playtesting results. Me? I'm CharOpping a batch of Orville Redenbacher. *nom* *nom* *nom* Mmmmmm Butter....Class is released on Monday, most gaming groups meet on the weekend. Actually playtests in live games delayed 5 to 6 days from release. Character formulation, number crunching, and build making before. Flaws in class examined abstractly during that process and noted.
Unless someone wants to get together and try to build a Pathfinder agent based computer model to simulate a live gaming table, instant play test results will not be forth coming.
Unfortunately true--I have completely prepared a playtest setup involving a PFS scenario that I think will put the Magus in a very unfavourable position (this particular scenario has way more encounters than average--a total of 7 on CR or above, and the Magus is likely to blow through her spells quickly) while replacing one member at a time of a five man team of Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Bard (except leaving in the Cleric) at all three tiers of PFS play for that scenario. The idea is that if the Magus can do well even in this situation, then she's good enough--I expect to find that Magus needs minor tweaks in several areas, but that it is more solid than a lot of people are saying, but I may be surprised (also some of the a lot of people might be using the tactic of overstating their negative opinion to be sure it can be heard loudly enough, which I'll admit is a valid way to be heard) Unfortunately, I find that I have lacked players interested in running nine iterations of the same scenario during the week, so all I can say is "Soon...Soon..."
Posted my play-test feedback on the Magus playtest thread. The Magus DOES have what it takes to contribute well...he just can't do it for very long. Also, granted, my experiences are limited to the mid-teen levels. But based on my experience, his problem (at least at that level) is not power but sustainability. I now whole-heartedly support the suggestion of a spell-slot reservoir for the arcana abilities-a sizeable reservoir (and lots of pearls of power) is all he really needs to shine.
Posted my play-test feedback on the Magus playtest thread. The Magus DOES have what it takes to contribute well...he just can't do it for very long. Also, granted, my experiences are limited to the mid-teen levels. But based on my experience, his problem (at least at that level) is not power but sustainability. I now whole-heartedly support the suggestion of a spell-slot reservoir for the arcana abilities-a sizeable reservoir (and lots of pearls of power) is all he really needs to shine.
I've added your post's text to the "Actual Play" thread where I'm gathering all the posts from actual playtests to make it easy for Jason to find them without seeing our (admittedly amusing) intellectual debates. Thanks for the playtest feedback!
I've added your post's text to the "Actual Play" thread where I'm gathering all the posts from actual playtests to make it easy for Jason to find them without seeing our (admittedly amusing) intellectual debates. Thanks for the playtest feedback!
This.
Agreed, ty FiddlersGreen for the playtest info
There's too many doucheorems to point out in the multiple threads within the forum and not enough actual playtesting results. Me? I'm CharOpping a batch of Orville Redenbacher. *nom* *nom* *nom* Mmmmmm Butter....Class is released on Monday, most gaming groups meet on the weekend. Actually playtests in live games delayed 5 to 6 days from release. Character formulation, number crunching, and build making before. Flaws in class examined abstractly during that process and noted.
Unless someone wants to get together and try to build a Pathfinder agent based computer model to simulate a live gaming table, instant play test results will not be forth coming.
I don't disagree; it is usually a weekend gig. But the overall culmination of 'ur math iz fail 4 ur magus' rhetoric we're all reading is just bit too much. It's like all that conjecturing about what the Large Hadron Collider is going to accomplish and not necessarily the end of our existence as we know it because people think it could theoretically create a black hole to do just that. So, I'm all for people to flip the 'on' switch and see what wicked this way comes. I'll just be watching and reading and statblocking my bag of popcorn in the background diligently. ;-)
Posted my play-test feedback on the Magus playtest thread. The Magus DOES have what it takes to contribute well...he just can't do it for very long. Also, granted, my experiences are limited to the mid-teen levels. But based on my experience, his problem (at least at that level) is not power but sustainability. I now whole-heartedly support the suggestion of a spell-slot reservoir for the arcana abilities-a sizeable reservoir (and lots of pearls of power) is all he really needs to shine.
I think it's actually the "Mid-teen levels" that come into play the most here.
Most games don't hit 20. I think we can all accept that. the "mid-level" for most games isn't in the teens, it's in 7-9.
So the Magus can be decent enough - if utterly unsustainable - at mit-teen levels...but for many games, that's near the end of the campaign.
I don't disagree; it is usually a weekend gig. But the overall culmination of 'ur math iz fail 4 ur magus' rhetoric we're all reading is just bit too much. It's like all that conjecturing about what the Large Hadron Collider is going to accomplish and not necessarily the end of our existence as we know it because people think it could theoretically create a black hole to do just that. So, I'm all for people to flip the 'on' switch and see what wicked this way comes. I'll just be watching and reading and statblocking my bag of popcorn in the background diligently. ;-)There's too many doucheorems to point out in the multiple threads within the forum and not enough actual playtesting results. Me? I'm CharOpping a batch of Orville Redenbacher. *nom* *nom* *nom* Mmmmmm Butter....Class is released on Monday, most gaming groups meet on the weekend. Actually playtests in live games delayed 5 to 6 days from release. Character formulation, number crunching, and build making before. Flaws in class examined abstractly during that process and noted.
Unless someone wants to get together and try to build a Pathfinder agent based computer model to simulate a live gaming table, instant play test results will not be forth coming.
The problem is that nobody has been able to point out any actual flaws in the number crunching. For every 'ur math iz fail 4 ur magus' post there's three 'STOP USING MATH IN MY TABLETOP GAME!' posts.
Stop using the MaThZ!
Has THAC0 taught us nothing?
Numbers are evil!
The problem is that nobody has been able to point out any actual flaws in the number crunching. For every 'ur math iz fail 4 ur magus' post there's three 'STOP USING MATH IN MY TABLETOP GAME!' posts.
That's when they need to play Exalted so they can describe the move that their character is making and roll 40d10 dice & count up the number of dice they hit between an 8 and a 10 to have that go toward the damage against the character they were combating against ... *head explodes*. :p
There's statistics and there's the dice roll. And everyone has their own tactics on what to do in collaboration with said dice roll. Statistical analysis isn't going to foresee every scenario unless you're one hell of an actuarial. In that case, we're going to Vegas & become best buds.
Stop using the MaThZ!
Has THAC0 taught us nothing?
Numbers are evil!
I'm a fan; you're in my top five with Mr. Fishy.
The problem is that nobody has been able to point out any actual flaws in the number crunching. For every 'ur math iz fail 4 ur magus' post there's three 'STOP USING MATH IN MY TABLETOP GAME!' posts.That's when they need to play Exalted so they can describe the move that their character is making and roll 40d10 dice & count up the number of dice they hit between an 8 and a 10 to have that go toward the damage against the character they were combating against ... *head explodes*. :p
There's statistics and there's the dice roll. And everyone has their own tactics on what to do in collaboration with said dice roll. Statistical analysis isn't going to foresee every scenario unless you're one hell of an actuarial. In that case, we're going to Vegas & become best buds.
It isn't about forseeing every scenario, though.
You can compare the Magus to other classes. You can compare them to encounters at various levels. It doesn't involve statistics or even super heavy number crunching or anything like that.
Go take a look at my thread :p
|
Without full base attack it will never be effective at anything. It has 6 spell levels, so it will always be a mediocre spell caster. Without full bab, it will be mediocre at combat. Congratulations, we have a class that sucks at not one, but TWO things.
So... rogues are ineffective at everything? Because I've played several melee-oriented rogues who were just fine in combat. Same thing with cleric, monk, and bard, all of whom are 3/4 BAB. I also would not deride bard as a mediocre spellcaster in Pathfinder. Not being the best at one thing doesn't mean you suck; it just means that your abilities need synergy so that you remain competitive.
I think that magus' problems are entirely unrelated to its BAB and spell level progressions. Mostly, its abilities just don't synergize very well, and it takes a long time to be good at what it's supposed to do. I think the class would work better with medium armor from the get-go, and a higher emphasis on arcane weapon and magus arcana stuff. The spellstrike and spell combat abilities are just too whiffy.
Jeremy Puckett
Director of Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I get lost in Bestiary 2 for a few days.. and things turn kinda nasty.
Listen up,
I got a thick skin. You have to in this industry, especially when your designs go out for public playtest. I expect some percentage of folks, who have no decorum or respect, to be rather rude and irritating. Believe it or not, I still get something from their posts, but let me tell you, it makes my life a lot easier if folks remember that I am a person like anyone else and if we work together and be polite toward each other, this whole process goes a lot smoother.
I know that some things are not working as planned. That happens. That is why we playtest. If you want to participate and help me make the class better, great, welcome aboard. If you can't be respectful and polite to me and the fellow people on these boards, you are going to find yourself mostly ignored by me, and possibly given an extended time out.
There are host of bits and pieces of this class that are going in for a redesign or tuning. You can either be part of the process... or you can just rail against everyone else for not seeing things your way, bounce from thread to thread insulting everyone who disagrees with you, and be completely marginalized. Your choice...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
My own perspective is that this is from the Ultimate MAGIC book, and thus not intended to be equal to a dedicated melee fighter.
I found that one of the worst things about the previous edition was the power creep that happened over the years. The core classes became second or third rate compared to the latest and greatest books, and The Game suffered. I don't want the Magus to beat fighters. I'm not sure I even want them beating Bards most of the time*.
Anything not core should fill a niche, but not make anything core obsolete. We should all ask ourselves "Will this make the whole Game better?" as we make suggestions for making the class better.
My wild guess is that there will be some kind of Full BAB with full caster levels in some future book, and I'm sure folks will slam it compared to the wizard. The Magus isn't that full BAB class, don't judge it in that context.
* Note: Bards kick ass!
It isn't about forseeing every scenario, though.
You can compare the Magus to other classes. You can compare them to encounters at various levels. It doesn't involve statistics or even super heavy number crunching or anything like that.
Go take a look at my thread :p
Show the way, Professor.
There already is a Full BAB/Full Caster Class from Paizo, the Campagin Setting Variatn Cleric. Though that`s 3.5, there`s nothing that really is against or incompatable with PRPG. The point with that though is there is ZERO synergy, especially at level of actions, and basically no Class Features besides Channeling once Domains are gone.
The Magus shouldn`t/needn`t beat Fighters at fighting/killing things because that`s not his niche, that`s the Fighters. Against a swarm, he probably should have some goods that the Fighter can`t deliver, and against enemy`s who`s terrain/abilities might normally hamper the Fighter, the Magus should also be able to shine.
My own perspective is that this is from the Ultimate MAGIC book, and thus not intended to be equal to a dedicated melee fighter.
I found that one of the worst things about the previous edition was the power creep that happened over the years. The core classes became second or third rate compared to the latest and greatest books, and The Game suffered. I don't want the Magus to beat fighters. I'm not sure I even want them beating Bards most of the time*.
Anything not core should fill a niche, but not make anything core obsolete. We should all ask ourselves "Will this make the whole Game better?" as we make suggestions for making the class better.
My wild guess is that there will be some kind of Full BAB with full caster levels in some future book, and I'm sure folks will slam it compared to the wizard. The Magus isn't that full BAB class, don't judge it in that context.
* Note: Bards kick ass!
The power creep was caused by the core book being the most hilariously unbalanced.
Certainly, Duskblades were better then 3.5 fighters. Everyone was better then 3.5 fighters.. It's like calling apple pie unbalanced because it's totally more delicious then eating a turd.
And yes, boo Magus, you shouldn't be more powerful then the class with three times your skill points, better casting, more spells per day, and a wide variaty of unique builds and cool abilities.
Wait, what's the purpose of the Magus again?
Show the way, Professor.It isn't about forseeing every scenario, though.
You can compare the Magus to other classes. You can compare them to encounters at various levels. It doesn't involve statistics or even super heavy number crunching or anything like that.
Go take a look at my thread :p
SHAZAMShow the way, Professor.It isn't about forseeing every scenario, though.
You can compare the Magus to other classes. You can compare them to encounters at various levels. It doesn't involve statistics or even super heavy number crunching or anything like that.
Go take a look at my thread :p
Danke Herr Professor.
I found that one of the worst things about the previous edition was the power creep that happened over the years. The core classes became second or third rate compared to the latest and greatest books, and The Game suffered. I don't want the Magus to beat fighters. I'm not sure I even want them beating Bards most of the time*.
* Note: Bards kick ass!
Can you give examples because Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Sorceror are the not second rate to any class.
If you are comparing melee dudes like Fighter/Ranger/Monk/Pally then I agree but only because they weren't built well (heck that was why Pathfinder redesign them).
Barbarian/Bard/Rogue are relatively the same due to fact that they were balanced.
And yes Bards do rock. Especially ones with Melodic casting so they can play Bardic music while they cast in 3.5. One of the best feats from Complete Mage.
Pathfinder later followed suit by making it a class feature, but then limited duration of Bardic music.
Scrapping the class is always an option, but a very unlikely one. 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 will keep the thought in mind, but right now, I am not going to consider it further.Thanks for clarifying. Allow me to clarify my position too:
(1) I see now that my OP was misguided. I thought the concept of the Magus as written was fundamentally flawed, whereas in fact it just fills a different role than I expected and can most likely be made to work with some (significant) tweaking and playtesting.
I'm not convinced. 3/4 BAB puts the class in a supporting role, like monk or rogue, or in a self-buffing role, like cleric or psychic warrior. Or maybe some mix at both. However, the numbers look weak for a self-buffer. It can also act as a secondary caster. The question in my mind is: what does the class do best? Bards are the best at charm and interaction, paladins are the best at resisting stuff and fighting evil, psychic warriors are the best at delivering unusual damage types in melee. What does the magus excel at? If the answer is, "A strange variant on TWF that involves casting and attacking as a full round action," that's not a class concept, that's a feat.
A true warrior-mage should have reasonable options to attack, cast, or attack and cast, in any given round. Thd dusklbade can pull that off, so can the EK, so can certain kinds of psychic warrior. Even the Hexblade can do it, unless SR is involved; throw in Havoc Mage and the Hexblade can beat the Magus at his own game. The Magus is a weak attacker, an indiferent caster, and at least at low levels, really struggles to do both at once.
|
My own perspective is that this is from the Ultimate MAGIC book, and thus not intended to be equal to a dedicated melee fighter.
I found that one of the worst things about the previous edition was the power creep that happened over the years. The core classes became second or third rate compared to the latest and greatest books, and The Game suffered. I don't want the Magus to beat fighters. I'm not sure I even want them beating Bards most of the time*.
Anything not core should fill a niche, but not make anything core obsolete. We should all ask ourselves "Will this make the whole Game better?" as we make suggestions for making the class better.
My wild guess is that there will be some kind of Full BAB with full caster levels in some future book, and I'm sure folks will slam it compared to the wizard. The Magus isn't that full BAB class, don't judge it in that context.
* Note: Bards kick ass!
The power creep was caused by the core book being the most hilariously unbalanced.
Certainly, Duskblades were better then 3.5 fighters. Everyone was better then 3.5 fighters.. It's like calling apple pie unbalanced because it's totally more delicious then eating a turd.
And yes, boo Magus, you shouldn't be more powerful then the class with three times your skill points, better casting, more spells per day, and a wide variaty of unique builds and cool abilities.
Wait, what's the purpose of the Magus again?
What about the monk and soul knife?
What about the monk and soul knife?
Bizzare extremes should stay as extremes ;p
And to be fair, the monk wasn't as bad as the soulknife was :<