Yes, I know this is the first round of beta, but if it isn't critiqued now, then when?
No, I haven't playtested it, I don't have the opportunity to do so. This is just an assessment of abilities as they look.
First, summary.
Given a 3/4 BAB, the class does not appear to be meant to be a front-line fighting class. However, since all of its class abilities are designed for it to be in melee combat at all times, it puts it in 3/4th line combat like the Rogue as opposed to the Cleric, Bard, Summoner, Druid, Inquisitor, or Alchemist. That leaves the class being required to be a competent melee combatant in addition to being a competent caster. However being required to be competent at both leaves it lacking in both arenas. The Magus has two defining abilities: Spell Strike and Spell Combat. To use Spell Strike as effectively as possible, the Magus must focus on Strength or Dexterity. To use Spell Combat anywhere near effectively, the Magus must focus on Intelligence as much as a primary caster. This leaves the Magus even more MAD (MADder if you would) than the notoriously MAD Monk. What's more is that to be effective in both class abilities, the Magus is feat taxed. Due to the changes in Concentration, Combat Casting is practically required and in an attempt to limit MAD as much as possible, Weapon Finesse is also practically required.
The class promises much and attempts to fulfill the community's long held wish for a combat caster, but the technical details of trying to balance it and work it into the system are currently seriously hampering it.
EDIT: Also, I am of the opinion that this class doesn't truly come into its own until mid to upper levels which, if I recall correctly, is counter to the way many Pathfinder players have stated they prefer to play.
Further posts will address abilities and hopefully head off potential errata.
Spell Strike:
I have a couple of issues with Spell Strike. The first being, how does the spell damage add in to the weapon attack? Is a weapon attack used in place of a touch attack in order to carry out the spell and they are just carried out simultaneously? Is the damage from the spell appended to the damage from the weapon? If it is not, the ability is primarily flavorful or primarily benefiting reach weapon users which directly contradicts the intentions of Spell Combat.
In addition, the spell explicitly states that a spell must be cast and then held before being separately delivered with a weapon attack. I am curious as to the necessity of this limit. Spell Strike is a defining feature of the class and I am not necessarily seeing the balance issue posed by allowing the same standard action to encompass casting a spell and delivering it via a melee attack, especially given a weapon attack is harder to carry out than a touch attack.
Spell Combat:
This is a very expansive ability that really, really defines the class and improves as the class increases in level. However, as interesting as the ability is, there are three serious issues – (1) the changes to Concentration checks in Pathfinder (2) you still take a penalty to attack if you lose the spell (3) arbitrary limits to its use.
- 1) The changes Pathfinder made to Concentration checks – instead of a skill, it is d20 + caster level + caster ability mod. Additionally, checks made to carry out a spell cast defensively is 15 + twice spell level. While this was obviously an attempt at balancing Concentration over the levels and making it more than a frivolous check, it is a serious blow to the Magus where a primary mechanic is based around it.
- 2) Also, simply using the ability results in a penalty to attacks, success or failure of the cast. The problem being you have a very good chance of failure, even more so until 8th level. Probability and statistics aren't my strong suit, but casting a 2nd level spell (DC 19 + 2 for Spell Combat penalty) as a 6th level Magus with 20 Intelligence (+11 to Concentration checks) leaves you with a 50% chance of failure even give practically best case scenario. Hence just attempting this gives you a 50% chance of a -4 to attack rolls for no reason. This removes what benefits a +4 BAB at the level grants you to attempting to hit, which are already limited by being split between trying to be a strong caster and a workable melee combatant.
- 3) All I can say about this is: I can think of no practical or even impractical reason some one couldn't cast a spell at any time during a full-attack using Spell Combat.
Magus Arcana:
Arcane Accuracy/Spell Shield – I really don't have a problem with these abilities, I am just confused with “Consuming cantrips in this way has no effect.” being the choice for specific clarification, all in all.
Broad Sudy – I am totally unclear as to the use or necessity of this ability. Is this for multiclasses Maguses to allow them to use the class defining abilities from other classes they are members of? Is it to use those abilities on spells copied into the spellbook from other classes? Do you randomly gain a spell from another class? This has to be clarified, whether it seems obvious to anyone else or not.
Concentrate - This is a sorely needed ability given the technical problems present in Spell Combat, but a limit of once per day limits its usefulness for any purpose in particular. When else would you really use it besides Spell Combat? This ability should increase in number of uses based on class level.
Critical Strike - The problem I have with this ability, that others may not agree with, is with the casting of the spell being a Swift action. That means that you cannot use the real component of Critical Strike in any round where you have used another offensive arcana (or just another other Swift Action).
Silent/Still Magic - Given the minimal use of both of these metamagics, the limit to once/day is really going to leave these arcana languishing in the barrel of choices even for role-players. They are nowhere near as powerful as the other metamagic and an increase in daily uses should serve to make them more attractive and balance them against the other metamagic arcana.
Arcane Weapon:
This ability could use some rewording for clarity. As I read it, each day you can add X enhancement to a weapon you have until the weapon itself has a +5 in cumulative enhancements. You can use these enhancements to apply specific magical properties in the same way as normal weapon enchantment. However, this makes the Vorpal property given by the class entirely unusable because it is a +5 enhancement by itself and therefore will make the weapon a cumulative +6 if applied which exceeds the limit given by the class.
Clarifications necessary:
Spell Strike:
Magus Arcane, Hasted Assault:
Magus Arcana, Reflection:
Bonus Feat:
|
Arcane Weapon:
This ability could use some rewording for clarity. As I read it, each day you can add X enhancement to a weapon you have until the weapon itself has a +5 in cumulative enhancements. You can use these enhancements to apply specific magical properties in the same way as normal weapon enchantment. However, this makes the Vorpal property given by the class entirely unusable because it is a +5 enhancement by itself and therefore will make the weapon a cumulative +6 if applied which exceeds the limit given by the class.
Not if you apply it to a +1 weapon. The way I read it is that it can be added to an already magical weapon so start with a +5 longsword, hit it with arcane weapon and bamn +10 weapon.
That's the problem with the wording I was pointing out.
That's the problem with the wording I was pointing out.
I suspect there could be some useful clarification, but the wording in unambiguous. The key bit is the word "or," which makes it clear that the maximum +5 stacking applies only to standard enhancement bonuses, and not to enhancement-equivalent special abilities.
That's the problem with the wording I was pointing out.I suspect there could be some useful clarification, but the wording in unambiguous. The key bit is the word "or," which makes it clear that the maximum +5 stacking applies only to standard enhancement bonuses, and not to enhancement-equivalent special abilities.
Except the "or" is to say you can apply properties equivalent to current enhancement allows instead of straight enhancements. It doesn't say it exceeds the prescribed limit.
Which is why it isn't "unambiguous" and needs clarification.
Nice points.
That's the problem with the wording I was pointing out.I suspect there could be some useful clarification, but the wording in unambiguous. The key bit is the word "or," which makes it clear that the maximum +5 stacking applies only to standard enhancement bonuses, and not to enhancement-equivalent special abilities.Except the "or" is to say you can apply properties equivalent to current enhancement allows instead of straight enhancements. It doesn't say it exceeds the prescribed limit.
Which is why it isn't "unambiguous" and needs clarification.
The only place there is a prescribed limit is in the straight enhancments, dude. That's the point. "...stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5, or they can be used to add any of the following weapon properties:..." There's no gap between the straight enhancement and the maximum for any ambiguity to creep in. You're added a restriction that simply isn't in the text.
|
|
Arcane Weapon (Su): At 4th level, a magus gains the
ability to imbue a melee weapon with powerful abilities.
When he prepares his spells, he can also spend a portion
of this time bonding with a single melee weapon. At 4th
level, this grants the weapon a +1 enhancement bonus. For
every four levels beyond 4th, the weapon gains another +1
enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.
These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking
with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5,
or they can be used be used to add any of the following
weapon properties: dancing, f laming, f laming burst, frost,
icy burst, keen, shock, shocking burst, speed, or vorpal. Adding
these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to
the property’s cost (see Table 15–9 of the Core Rulebook).
These properties are added to any the weapon already has,
but duplicates do not stack. If the weapon is not magical,
at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before
any other properties can be added. These bonuses and
properties are decided when the weapon is bonded and
cannot be changed until the next time the magus prepares
spells. These bonuses do not function if the weapon is
wielded by anyone other than the magus.
Bonding with a weapon in this way is not without danger.
A magus that is bonded to a weapon must have the weapon
in hand to cast spells from the magus spell list; otherwise
he must make a concentration check to cast such spells.
The DC of this check is equal to 20 + the spell’s level.
That sentence made it pretty clear to me that it stacks with previous enchants.
Concentrate - This is a sorely needed ability given the technical problems present in Spell Combat, but a limit of once per day limits its usefulness for any purpose in particular. When else would you really use it besides Spell Combat? This ability should increase in number of uses based on class level.
...
Silent/Still Magic - Given the minimal use of both of these metamagics, the limit to once/day is really going to leave these arcana languishing in the barrel of choices even for role-players. They are nowhere near as powerful as the other metamagic and an increase in daily uses should serve to make them more attractive and balance them against the other metamagic arcana.
Perhaps they could be modified to work 1+INT or 3+INT times per day, then. Extra bonus for the high casting stat, per the way that specialist wizard abilities work.
These properties are added to any the weapon already has,
but duplicates do not stack.That sentence made it pretty clear to me that it stacks with previous enchants.
I am focusing on this:
These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking
with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5
Which, in fact, discourages you from getting enchanted weapons with the current way it is worded. It is implied that the combination of weapon enhancements and bond enhancements cannot exceed +5 for the purpose of adding bond enhancements.
These properties are added to any the weapon already has,
but duplicates do not stack.That sentence made it pretty clear to me that it stacks with previous enchants.
I am focusing on this:
Which, in fact, discourages you from getting enchanted weapons with the current way it is worded. It is implied that the combination of weapon enhancements and bond enhancements cannot exceed +5 for the purpose of adding bond enhancements.These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking
with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5
Or it means the raw enchament bonus to attack and damage rolls cannot exceed plus five.
And the weapon can in fact have different enchament properties added to a theorehitcal maximum of +15
For example
You are using a +5 GreatAxe of Keen(+1) Speed(+3) and Flamming(+1) , which you make your arcane weapon with another +5 enchament turn it into a
+5 GreatAxe of Vorpal(+5) Keen(+1) Speed(+3) and Flamming(+1)
|
|
These properties are added to any the weapon already has,
but duplicates do not stack.That sentence made it pretty clear to me that it stacks with previous enchants.
I am focusing on this:
Which, in fact, discourages you from getting enchanted weapons with the current way it is worded. It is implied that the combination of weapon enhancements and bond enhancements cannot exceed +5 for the purpose of adding bond enhancements.These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking
with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5
Okay I can see how that can cause confusion. If "to a maximum of +5" were deleted it would solve what could be a weekly board question.
I should say I do agree with the other points you've made and my real complaint in that the class doesn't feel alive until around level 8.
Also I'm not sure I'm thrilled about the way armor is introduced to the character. I think I'd rather see the Magus start able to use all armors and have the arcane failure lessen. I just hate the idea of wondering about enhancing armor only to swap it out 4 levels later when I can wear heavier. Though this is really only a concern in the 7-13 level range. Pre-7 it's not like you could have invested to much money anyway.
These properties are added to any the weapon already has,
but duplicates do not stack.That sentence made it pretty clear to me that it stacks with previous enchants.
I am focusing on this:
Which, in fact, discourages you from getting enchanted weapons with the current way it is worded. It is implied that the combination of weapon enhancements and bond enhancements cannot exceed +5 for the purpose of adding bond enhancements.These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking
with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5
I just said that the key word is the "or," which is the next word in the sentence after you stopped your quote. The whole section is,
...stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5, they can be used to add any of the following weapon properties:
The use of "or" means there is no way to semantically connect the +5 maximum to the weapon special properties. None. This is a nonissue, man.
However, the discussion is distracting from an otherwise excellent analysis, so I'm going to drop it from here on out.
Spell Combat:
...Hence just attempting this gives you a 50% chance of a -4 to attack rolls for no reason. ...
This is the main thing I agree with you on. The most exciting ability for this class is Spell Combat, but it seems like you don't really have any reasonable chance of hitting something with it until you're at a pretty high level. The -4 penalty is pretty severe for a 3/4 BAB class. Maybe it should be lowered to a -2 at 1st level instead of having to wait until 8th level?
As for the concentration checks...well, at least you can get around those by not casting at your max level.
I also think that if the Magus uses still spell he should be able to use Spell Combat without having a free hand.
Of course, I haven't playtested the class yet. I'm trying to get one of my players to try it out XD
|
Spell Combat:
...Hence just attempting this gives you a 50% chance of a -4 to attack rolls for no reason. ...This is the main thing I agree with you on. The most exciting ability for this class is Spell Combat, but it seems like you don't really have any reasonable chance of hitting something with it until you're at a pretty high level. The -4 penalty is pretty severe for a 3/4 BAB class. Maybe it should be lowered to a -2 at 1st level instead of having to wait until 8th level?
As for the concentration checks...well, at least you can get around those by not casting at your max level.
I also think that if the Magus uses still spell he should be able to use Spell Combat without having a free hand.
Of course, I haven't playtested the class yet. I'm trying to get one of my players to try it out XD
If the penalty was removed altogether, it still wouldn't be unbalanced. Make the improved and greater versions give bonuses instead of penalties. The way PF scales abilities, multi-classing to get a good BAB to use Spell Combat doesn't really unbalance anything.
|
I share concerns with the OP about Spellstrike and Spell Combat. I think something such as a bonus to the Spells DC or bonus to the check to overcome spell resistance for me to ever consider delivering the attack through my weapon.
As of right now I only would think people at higher levels who are using something to the tune of a keen scimitar would want to try and channel the spell through their weapon.
A thought just occurred to me.
Why would you ever use Spell Combat for the purpose of casting a spell? I will guess it is either the reason for or a at least goes hand in hand with the class having a Medium BAB. Being able to cast a spell at the same time as one attacks increases your action economy per turn similar to having more attacks when using a full attack. However, what exactly is there that you would need or want to cast at the same time you were going to perform a full attack? Unless combat starts right on top of you, you are going to be moving into it, at which point you can cast a spell before or after moving.
It seems this class wants to be the Duskblade while being unique from the Duskblade. The combination of attempts ends up hurting the class.
Spell Combat artificially duplicates and expands upon the Duskblade's ability to convert a standard action spell to a Swift action - ie, cast a spell and attack in the same round. Changes were made to balance this ability in Pathfinder and add flavor but the question arises, what part of the Duskblade needed balancing for Pathfinder?
The class may need a full overhaul of all class-defining abilities to make it truly a PC choice and effective at what it is supposed to be doing - spell casting while engaged in melee combat.
On another note, as designed, the current class is pigeonholed into how it can be played - one-hand weapon melee fighter. Unless I am mistaken, Pathfinder's philosophy so far has been player choice, not pigeonholing yet here we have a class who has a major class-defining ability negated by not playing as the designer intended.
I’m sure people are going to rip me a new one for saying this, but I really hate this class.
This exactly what I did'nt want to see in a fighter/wizard combo, and that is the duskblade. I really think there is already enough medium BAB; d8 hp; bard spell progression classes out there (bard, summoner, alchemist (I know he doesn’t really spellcast), and the inquisitor (I know she’s actually a divine caster)).
I was hoping for something a little closer to the hexblade, primarily a warrior with spellcasting that enhances his combat abilities, as opposed to a 50/50 split. As it stands now the class doesn’t seem overpowered or underpowered as much as it’s just really annoying me. Sorry for the semi-rant, but I would have had preferred a full BAB, d10 hp, ranger spell progression class with extra supernatural abilities that imitated some of the lost spell power. I really hate what I’m seeing here.
|
I’m sure people are going to rip me a new one for saying this, but I really hate this class.
This exactly what I did'nt want to see in a fighter/wizard combo, and that is thae duskblade. I really think there is already enough medium BAB; d8 hp; bard spell progression classes out there (bard, summoner, alchemist (I know he doesn’t really spellcast), and the inquisitor (I know she’s actually a divine caster)).
I was hoping for something a little closer to the hexblade, primarily a warrior with spellcasting that enhances his combat abilities, as opposed to a 50/50 split. As it stands now the class doesn’t seem overpowered or underpowered as much as it’s just really annoying me. Sorry for the semi-rant, but I would have had preferred a full BAB, d10 hp, ranger spell progression class with extra supernatural abilities that imitated some of the lost spell power. I really hate what I’m seeing here.
That would be my preference as well. I'm not sure, however, that it's everyone else's. A lot seem to want a bard-type with more combat based abilities. I like the arcane duelist for that, actually. I've made an arcane duelist, and think the bones were quite good. I ended up multiclassing her with some fighter levels because when I play this archetype I want a Fighter that happens to fight with magic, not an actual 50/50 mix of fighter and magic user.
I created my own version of a fighter magic user (with the unimaginitive name spellsword. *sigh*) with just this sort of feel .
|
|
A thought just occurred to me.
Why would you ever use Spell Combat for the purpose of casting a spell? I will guess it is either the reason for or a at least goes hand in hand with the class having a Medium BAB. Being able to cast a spell at the same time as one attacks increases your action economy per turn similar to having more attacks when using a full attack. However, what exactly is there that you would need or want to cast at the same time you were going to perform a full attack? Unless combat starts right on top of you, you are going to be moving into it, at which point you can cast a spell before or after moving.
It seems this class wants to be the Duskblade while being unique from the Duskblade. The combination of attempts ends up hurting the class.Spell Combat artificially duplicates and expands upon the Duskblade's ability to convert a standard action spell to a Swift action - ie, cast a spell and attack in the same round. Changes were made to balance this ability in Pathfinder and add flavor but the question arises, what part of the Duskblade needed balancing for Pathfinder?
The class may need a full overhaul of all class-defining abilities to make it truly a PC choice and effective at what it is supposed to be doing - spell casting while engaged in melee combat.
On another note, as designed, the current class is pigeonholed into how it can be played - one-hand weapon melee fighter. Unless I am mistaken, Pathfinder's philosophy so far has been player choice, not pigeonholing yet here we have a class who has a major class-defining ability negated by not playing as the designer intended.
This class screams bladesinger in flavor in many ways. The cast and attack ability in Spell Combat. The 1 handed weapon. The melee-only style.
Spell Combat is designed to buff/debuff, then attack or vice versa. It's not restricted to only channeling damage through a weapon. Spell Combat combines multiple actions, so the class isn't bog down by action economy. It's a fine design, since the character doesn't provoke AoOs, and can still make multiple attacks. This is fine. What is not so good is the penalties with it early on.
It's the penalties and the changes to Concentration checks that hurt Spell Combat and Spellstrike. I also think an expanded spell list would help to define this is not just a duskblade, but a class that can fight and buff/debuff/whatever it needs to.
Spell Combat as it is also provokes AoO when performing a ranged touch attack. Not the casting part, but the ranged attack while in melee part. Unless I am mistaken, this is a PF ruling/default. Waiving this would help as well for people who do want to blast and attack in the same round.
|
|
I’m sure people are going to rip me a new one for saying this, but I really hate this class.
This exactly what I did'nt want to see in a fighter/wizard combo, and that is thae duskblade. I really think there is already enough medium BAB; d8 hp; bard spell progression classes out there (bard, summoner, alchemist (I know he doesn’t really spellcast), and the inquisitor (I know she’s actually a divine caster)).
I was hoping for something a little closer to the hexblade, primarily a warrior with spellcasting that enhances his combat abilities, as opposed to a 50/50 split. As it stands now the class doesn’t seem overpowered or underpowered as much as it’s just really annoying me. Sorry for the semi-rant, but I would have had preferred a full BAB, d10 hp, ranger spell progression class with extra supernatural abilities that imitated some of the lost spell power. I really hate what I’m seeing here.
That would be my preference as well. I'm not sure, however, that it's everyone else's. A lot seem to want a bard-type with more combat based abilities. I like the arcane duelist for that, actually. I've made an arcane duelist, and think the bones were quite good. I ended up multiclassing her with some fighter levels because when I play this archetype I want a Fighter that happens to fight with magic, not an actual 50/50 mix of fighter and magic user.
I created my own version of a fighter magic user (with the unimaginitive name spellsword. *sigh*) with just this sort of feel .
I like the class, but it's simple and underpowered. Spell Combat is the only "WOW" or "holy s$%@" ability, and it's not overpowered at all currently. This class is definitely the 4th or 5th wheel (possibly replacing rogue). Players are definitely getting the melee + arcane feel that I wanted as well.
One of the problems is that players probably aren't familiar with the psychic warrior, who is very similar in overall design. 3/4 BAB is not my favorite either, but I could live with it IF Spell Combat didn't have penalties.
That would be my preference as well. I'm not sure, however, that it's everyone else's. A lot seem to want a bard-type with more combat based abilities. I like the arcane duelist for that, actually. I've made an arcane duelist, and think the bones were quite good. I ended up multiclassing her with some fighter levels because when I play this archetype I want a Fighter that happens to fight with magic, not an actual 50/50 mix of fighter and magic user.
Actually, speaking for myself, I find acceptable a full BAB class with arcane spells.. but remember that Hexblade spells reached level 4 at max.
As I pointed out in another thread, level 6 spells (including teleports and similar stuff) AND full BAB could not be great for the balance of the game.
Perhaps, the Magus at level 1 can choose between full BAB + spell up to level 4, or medium BAB and spells up to six?
BYC thank you.
Mr. Fishy didn't want to be the fishhole that mentioned the psychic warrior clone.
That would be my preference as well. I'm not sure, however, that it's everyone else's. A lot seem to want a bard-type with more combat based abilities. I like the arcane duelist for that, actually. I've made an arcane duelist, and think the bones were quite good. I ended up multiclassing her with some fighter levels because when I play this archetype I want a Fighter that happens to fight with magic, not an actual 50/50 mix of fighter and magic user.
Actually, speaking for myself, I find acceptable a full BAB class with arcane spells.. but remember that Hexblade spells reached level 4 at max.
As I pointed out in another thread, level 6 spells (including teleports and similar stuff) AND full BAB could not be great for the balance of the game.
Perhaps, the Magus at level 1 can choose between full BAB + spell up to level 4, or medium BAB and spells up to six?
And why, exactly, could you not have full BAB and 6 levels of spells? Because he is an arcane caster? Both the Cleric and Druid get Medium BAB and 9 levels of spells.
This game is still suffering from the arbitrary power division between Divine and Arcane spells created back in the early additions.
|
|
That would be my preference as well. I'm not sure, however, that it's everyone else's. A lot seem to want a bard-type with more combat based abilities. I like the arcane duelist for that, actually. I've made an arcane duelist, and think the bones were quite good. I ended up multiclassing her with some fighter levels because when I play this archetype I want a Fighter that happens to fight with magic, not an actual 50/50 mix of fighter and magic user.
Actually, speaking for myself, I find acceptable a full BAB class with arcane spells.. but remember that Hexblade spells reached level 4 at max.
As I pointed out in another thread, level 6 spells (including teleports and similar stuff) AND full BAB could not be great for the balance of the game.
Perhaps, the Magus at level 1 can choose between full BAB + spell up to level 4, or medium BAB and spells up to six?
Yeah, in the homebrew class I built the highest level of spell for the class was 4th. Full BaB, High Fort and Will, 2 skill points, casting without penalty never got higher than medium armor, 4th level spells max, and arcane fighter flavored specials.
But my preference is for fighters that can put up buff spells, or maybe use a few touch attack spells. No fireballs or scorching rays available. I would cast mirror image, haste, interposing hand, not cloudkill or hold monster, with this kind of character. A lot of people seem to prefer more offensive spells...and combat ability. For those kinds of characters, I think the magus is a good start. It just happens to not be what I look for in an arcane warrior character.
|
|
And why, exactly, could you not have full BAB and 6 levels of spells? Because he is an arcane caster? Both the Cleric and Druid get Medium BAB and 9 levels of spells.
This game is still suffering from the arbitrary power division between Divine and Arcane spells created back in the early additions.
This is very true. Arcane spells are in general on a different plane of power than divine spells. The problem is, while it's worth noting for future rules systems that may be developed, at this time it's not going to change - anymore than the basic spell concentration mechanic is going to change. So it's one of the parameters of the system at this point and must be worked with.
Except the Concentration mechanic DID change. It changed notably from 3.5 whereas the arbitrary separation between Divine and Arcane casters - and the benefits given to Divine Casters - still exists.
Like I said on the offical class feadback thread, if anyone else feels disapointed, you should speak up, otherwise the class will go through as written.
The class as it's written now is just a big "Sigh, no this isn't what I want".
To Erik or Jason, sorry for being so critical, but it's just so bland and uninspiring.
|
|
Except the Concentration mechanic DID change.
No, it didn't. It's not being changed in the Ultimate Magic supplement.
It changed notably from 3.5 whereas the arbitrary separation between Divine and Arcane casters - and the benefits given to Divine Casters - still exists.
It changed between Pathfinder and 3.5, yes. It will not change from what it is in Pathfinder, however. Changes to Pathfinder Core mechanics are not going to happen in a supplement. So while this issue, as I said, is worth noting for possible future core ruleset updates (i.e. Pathfinder 2.0), it is not going to have any effect on the current core ruleset, and thus will have minimal effect on this particular playtest, which is for a supplement of the current ruleset.
As was noted earlier in a Paizo response to a comment Kirth made with regard to Concentration checks in this particular playtest, existing core rules will not be changed in this supplement. Noting an issue imposed by the core rules is valuable. Dwelling on it is not. It is now one of the "givens" of the current (Pathfinder) system.
|
And why, exactly, could you not have full BAB and 6 levels of spells? Because he is an arcane caster? Both the Cleric and Druid get Medium BAB and 9 levels of spells.
Given the years of CODZilla complaints level at 3.5, I would hesitate to use a 3/4 BAB, full caster class as the benchmark. Cleric and Druid need to be viewed as the absolute limit of base class power instead of the norm.
This game is still suffering from the arbitrary power division between Divine and Arcane spells created back in the early additions.
Completely true. However, this sacrifice was made for backward compatibility (ie, don't change the Cleric/Druid BAB/spell progressions because it screws with previously published Paizo products too much).
It appears the design philosophy is make newer material less powerful that Cleric/Druid. It's debatable whether this is the best decision as an arcane melee/caster blend on the same order of power as the Cleric probably wouldn't unbalance the game (it would just add another obvious powergaming opportunity).
-Skeld
No, it didn't. It's not being changed in the Ultimate Magic supplement.
....What?
It changed between Pathfinder and 3.5, yes. It will not change from what it is in Pathfinder, however. Changes to Pathfinder Core mechanics are not going to happen in a supplement. So while this issue, as I said, is worth noting for possible future core ruleset updates (i.e. Pathfinder 2.0), it is not going to have any effect on the current core ruleset, and thus will have minimal effect on this particular playtest, which is for a supplement of the current ruleset.
Ok. I have no idea what on earth you are talking about any more.
Except the Concentration mechanic DID change. It changed notably from 3.5 whereas the arbitrary separation between Divine and Arcane casters - and the benefits given to Divine Casters - still exists.In what way did the Concentration mechanic change between 3.5 and Pathfinder?
I was going to answer this then I realize that this is my own thread and when I made the thread I explained this explicitly when discussing Spell Combat.
|
|
No, it didn't. It's not being changed in the Ultimate Magic supplement.....What?
Ok. I have no idea what on earth you are talking about any more.
It changed between Pathfinder and 3.5, yes. It will not change from what it is in Pathfinder, however. Changes to Pathfinder Core mechanics are not going to happen in a supplement. So while this issue, as I said, is worth noting for possible future core ruleset updates (i.e. Pathfinder 2.0), it is not going to have any effect on the current core ruleset, and thus will have minimal effect on this particular playtest, which is for a supplement of the current ruleset.
Mentioning that the Concentration mechanic changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder has little impact on this playtest, because this playtest is necessarily a Pathfinder playtest. It is a playtest for a supplement to the Pathfinder system. Therefore discussing changes to the Concentration mechanic between 3.5 and Pathfinder is completely irrelevent to the current playtest, in pretty much any way I can imagine.
Arcane magic and Divine magic mechanics, which spells belong in which list and the bones of extant classes are not going to change - the Core rules are complete. Therefore it is not useful, beyond its ability to provide us a frame of reference for your opinions and preferences as a reviewer, to say that you want core mechanics or core mechanical assumptions to change for the purpose of this class.
To put it in a nutshell, mentioning that you don't like how arcane and divine magic are currently divided, or currently work, is not a terribly important comment for the purposes of this playtest because it's not going to change. It's valuable for understanding where you're coming from as a reviewer, but that's about it.
Mentioning that the Concentration mechanic changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder has little impact on this playtest, because this playtest is necessarily a Pathfinder playtest.
It actually has everything to do with this playtest because of the Spell Combat feature of the Magus.
For the reasons I outlined in my post discussing it.To put it in a nutshell, mentioning that you don't like how arcane and divine magic are currently divided, or currently work, is not a terribly important comment for the purposes of this playtest because it's not going to change. It's valuable for understanding where you're coming from as a reviewer, but that's about it.
Actually, it is entirely relevant to the playtest because the arbitrary division of power between arcane and divine power is what leaves Magus with a 3/4 BAB and 3/4 spell progression because it is an arcane caster despite focusing on melee combat.
|
|
Mentioning that the Concentration mechanic changed between 3.5 and Pathfinder has little impact on this playtest, because this playtest is necessarily a Pathfinder playtest.It actually has everything to do with this playtest because of the Spell Combat feature of the Magus.
For the reasons I outlined in my post discussing it.
But it doesn't matter looking at it using 3.5 Concentration. It's useful to compare and contrast, but ultimately it doesn't matter since magus will be played under PF rules, so it should be discussed under PF rules.
But it doesn't matter looking at it using 3.5 Concentration. It's useful to compare and contrast, but ultimately it doesn't matter since magus will be played under PF rules, so it should be discussed under PF rules.
It doesn't appear to matter, but it does in the big picture because the designers are aware of how Concentration was changed to make it more difficult but based a core class mechanic on succeeding Concentration checks.
I'm not discussing the worth of the change of Concentration, that's another debate entirely; however, I am pointing it out as a problem with the Magus class that the designers either overlooked or need to look at again because it is.
A thought just occurred to me.
Why would you ever use Spell Combat for the purpose of casting a spell? I will guess it is either the reason for or a at least goes hand in hand with the class having a Medium BAB. Being able to cast a spell at the same time as one attacks increases your action economy per turn similar to having more attacks when using a full attack. However, what exactly is there that you would need or want to cast at the same time you were going to perform a full attack? Unless combat starts right on top of you, you are going to be moving into it, at which point you can cast a spell before or after moving.
In playtesting so far, it's been used to put up buffs without having to sacrifice starting the melee buzzsaw. Once you get into combat, it's about action economy, making attacks alongside blasting spells - increasing DPR by adding scorching ray or shocking grasp* to a typical full attack routine.
Unfortunately, this works really well at midlevels and up, but is all but impossible at the low end, thanks to the scaling of concentration checks and the painful spell combat penalties. 8th level produces a huge increase in power for the class; improved spell combat is an absolute must-have.
*speaking of which, I've finally found a class and spell combination that works well with Intensified Spell!
A thought just occurred to me.
Why would you ever use Spell Combat for the purpose of casting a spell? I will guess it is either the reason for or a at least goes hand in hand with the class having a Medium BAB. Being able to cast a spell at the same time as one attacks increases your action economy per turn similar to having more attacks when using a full attack. However, what exactly is there that you would need or want to cast at the same time you were going to perform a full attack? Unless combat starts right on top of you, you are going to be moving into it, at which point you can cast a spell before or after moving.In playtesting so far, it's been used to put up buffs without having to sacrifice starting the melee buzzsaw. Once you get into combat, it's about action economy, making attacks alongside blasting spells - increasing DPR by adding scorching ray or shocking grasp* to a typical full attack routine.
Unfortunately, this works really well at midlevels and up, but is all but impossible at the low end, thanks to the scaling of concentration checks and the painful spell combat penalties. 8th level produces a huge increase in power for the class; improved spell combat is an absolute must-have.
*speaking of which, I've finally found a class and spell combination that works well with Intensified Spell!
That confirms what I thought then. The class really doesn't start becoming fully capable until mid to high levels.
Clarifications necessary:
Spell Strike:
Does the spell damage apply as a separate attack or add-on to the same attack when using Spell Strike? If add-on, is it or is it not affected by criticals? If it is affected by criticals, is it multiplied by the weapon's modifier or the default modifier?
Is a spell when delivered through a weapon still affected by an enemy's SR and does it still require a saving throw?
Magus Arcane, Hasted Assault:
It may be worth it to change “and the duration is equal to the level of the sacrificed spell” to “and lasts a number of rounds equal to the level of the sacrified spell.”
Magus Arcana, Reflection:
Does the line “but only if the targeted spell is of a level equal to or less than the sacrificed spell” mean the part of Spell Turning that applies to spells over the amount of Spell Turning you have left doesn't apply?
Bonus Feat:
Do Magus Arcana meet the pre-requisites for Metamagic feats?
+1. These points absolutely need clarification. Good catches.
A level 20 magus has only 6th level spells, that are just on par with 6th level wizard spells (unlike say 6th level bard or summoner spells) meanwhile the EK build has 9th level casting.
-James
This is a big issue I see in just looking at the Magus. Whereas having a new base class to fit a particular type of character is a good thing...I'm not sure just how well the Magus is filling that role. I'm sure we'll see a lot more evidence as playtesting continues, but my immediate reaction is that the Magus doesn't really compete all that well with an Eldritch Knight of the same/equivalent level (20 or not).
I don't really expect or even want 9th level spells on the magus spell list as 6th level spells...but it would be nice if the spell list did include a few higher level spells. I'm not suggesting Meteor Swarm or anything of the sort, I am suggesting adding a few thematic spells to the list to give the level 16+ Magus a bit more oomph. The Bard gets spells like Greater Shout and Irresistible Dance on their spell list..both very thematic spells for the bard and it makes sense that a very high level bard can cast those spells. I'd like to see the Magus spell list brought more in line with the way the Bard spell list was designed.
The Bard and the Summoner get access to Greater Dispel Magic 3 levels earlier than the Magus...which just doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Oddly enough..the Inquisitor also gets GDM as a 6th level spell. Hmm...
Which is true of most classes.
Not to the extent it seems to be true of the magus.
At 1st level, the magus is essentially indistinguishable from an aristocrat, save that it has traded medium armor proficiency for two rounds a day of acting like a wizard, by dropping a magic missile or a color spray.
At 2nd level, spell combat shows up, but as currently presented, you wind up trading out one decent melee attack (which is, still, indistinguishable from an artistocrat) for at best a 50% chance of getting off a spell and another 50% chance of actually hitting anything. For those of you playing at home, that's around a 25% chance of actually accomplishing what you set out to do this round. have fun with that.
At 3rd level, things look up a bit, because you grab the concentrate arcana, so there's one spell you'll actually probably get off each day when using spell combat. Since you only have 4 spells anyway, that's better than it looks, and you've incrementally gained a bit of edge on the concentration DC you're looking for as well. Still, it's one round a day when you can actually do what you're designed for.
At 4th level, arcane weapon shows up, to help with the attack penalty problem. Take the +1, even if you already have a +1 weapon - you need the attack bonus, since you're still sucking down the -4 penalty from spell combat. The combo that was working best here was spell combat bull's strength, using concentrate if needed to make sure the spell goes off, then take the attacks: effectively reduces the attack penalty to -2, while adding +2 to damage. Much less painful. Still only works for one fight each day though, thanks to the limitation on concentrate.
|
Spell Combat:
This is a very expansive ability that really, really defines the class and improves as the class increases in level. However, as interesting as the ability is, there are three serious issuesConsider that an EK at high levels could almost quicken the same spells that the magus is using spell combat to cast and then take any full round action that he/she wishes without penalty leaves me less than impressed by this ability as written.
Essentially I think it should be something along the lines of when making a full attack action the magus can cast a standard action spell as a free action.
Now depends if they dislike the idea of them being able to cast true strike for the final iterative attack or not whether they wish to limit this to before or after the full attack, etc.
That the class requires a heavy penalty to hit on a medium BAB (and hence poor for the role) class as well as a harder than normal defensive casting (required rather than letting them provoke the AOO and hope for a miss) just leaves it as not a strong class feature.
I figure that a magus20 has to be compared with a ftr1/wizard9/EK10 just for baseline comparisons. As the magus loses so much in casting over the other, it has to make up for this somehow. It's not in hps (down just 9), not in BAB (the same at the end), not in equivalent fighter level for feats (10 vs 11), a little in saves (12/6/12 vs 10/6/9), its at a loss for feats (3 bonus vs 5 bonus), so it has to come from some other magus class features.
Now these class features have to balance out against the disparity on the magus casting. A level 20 magus has only 6th level spells, that are just on par with 6th level wizard spells (unlike say 6th level bard or summoner spells) meanwhile the EK build has 9th level casting.
-James
1 EK have the quicken tax of +4 spell levels
2. Magus can quicken and cast and full attackSo for Example an Eldritch Knight can quicken a haste burning a 7th level spell slot and full attack at the same BaB as the Magus while the Magus can once a day quicken a disintigrate and combat cast the same haste spell and then make a full attack.
Fairly balanced wouldn't you say?