It can do something that no other class can accomplish easily which is cast a spell and attack in the same turn. that could be an invaluable ability at second level, you dont have to waste an action to buff your self, you can do it and attack at the same time, and with spellstrike, you cast the spell, and then you can use it to strike with an AoO why are these concepts so difficult to grasp, the class is awsome. Sure its not the god class that can cast 9th level spells, have a full bab, and deal out massive amounts of damage, but I feel that it accomplishes what it needs to much better than most of the other classes that can be compared to it.
It can do something that no other class can accomplish easily which is cast a spell and attack in the same turn. that could be an invaluable ability at second level, you dont have to waste an action to buff your self, you can do it and attack at the same time, and with spellstrike, you cast the spell, and then you can use it to strike with an AoO why are these concepts so difficult to grasp, the class is awsome. Sure its not the god class that can cast 9th level spells, have a full bab, and deal out massive amounts of damage, but I feel that it accomplishes what it needs to much better than most of the other classes that can be compared to it.
I can't speak for everyone but I think the issue isn't with the ability but in the difficulty it takes to pull it off. I for one love spell combat and hope it stays in a very similar form but made slightly easier. I broke down the percentages in another thread and the ability only works generally less than half the time. Often only with a 35% success rate. I will test it tonight to see if that holds true in my playtest.
Personally, I think people weren't reading what was said on the description of Ultimate Magic.
Ultimate Magic also introduces the latest Pathfinder RPG base class: the magus. Combining arcane spells with practiced martial skill, the magus incorporates elements of the warrior and wizard to walk a path balanced between two deadly efficient extremes.
It was up front in my view, and I personally understand, and like, what they were going for.
I agree with Seeker of skybreak above me. Yes, the Magus has a very interesting and potentially very useful ability, but the penalties -especially the -4 to attack rolls in my opinion- make it practically useless at low levels, even more so when you consider that it is granted at low levels. This is the Magus' signature/bread-and-butter/lynchpin/whatever-you-wanna-call-it ability, thus, at least as I look at it, it should actually be a feasible option as soon as you get it as well as stay useful down the road.
It is hardly an invaluable ability at 2nd level, since by using it at that level there is a too high chance of actually doing nothing instead of buffing yourself and attacking at the same time (even if you pull off the spell, the chance of actually hitting with a -4 to attack at 2nd level with a BAB of +1 is, I should think, extremely low, too low to make it a worthwhile option). In my opinion, Spell Combat becomes a viable option 6 levels down the road, so I am a bit baffled as to why the class gets it at 2nd level. By this, I do not mean it should be given at a higher level. Just that the penalties need to be a little lower, maybe -2/-2 or something.
As Seeker said, I also love Spell Combat and the flavor and mental image of it, but it should be made slightly easier so that people actually consider using it from the get-go. As it is now, I see no reason why someone would try to cast a spell successfully and try to hit something in one round with a very limited chance of success instead of simply actually doing one thing in one round and actually doing the other thing in the next round.
As for the path balanced between two deadly efficient extremes, I interpret it as the class is now: more magic-heavy than the paladin and ranger with a limited selection of spells when compared to the wizard and other pure spellcasters, while at the same time lacking in pure combat ability when compared to the fighter, as well as the paladin and ranger. Plus, having to study a spellbook and having spells such as lightning bolt and fireball puts it in a different category than the bard. All in all, a class trying to combine and find a balance between melee combat and spellcasting, not being excellent in accomplishing one with a bit of the other thrown in for good measure.
It can do something that no other class can accomplish easily which is cast a spell and attack in the same turn. that could be an invaluable ability at second level, you dont have to waste an action to buff your self, you can do it and attack at the same time, and with spellstrike, you cast the spell, and then you can use it to strike with an AoO why are these concepts so difficult to grasp, the class is awsome. Sure its not the god class that can cast 9th level spells, have a full bab, and deal out massive amounts of damage, but I feel that it accomplishes what it needs to much better than most of the other classes that can be compared to it.
Considering PF is supposed to be compatible with 3.5, what about the Duskblade from PHB2?
I don't see any reason to complain about this class. If anything, it seems a bit OP in some regards.
The ability to spellstrike a shocking grasp through your sword at low levels is more than cool enough. You've got a cleric's BAB, armor, martial weapon proficiency, decent saves, and d8 hit points that will make the magus able enough to handle things at low level.
As far as the difficulty of making multiple attacks per round and casting a spell (not spellstrike through your weapon but any spell you know) in the same round, there _should_ be stiff penalties for doing this. That ability is great. And at low level you're not going to use this much because you won't be getting multiple attacks per round anyway, unless you are wielding two weapons.
Nothing stops the magus from casting his buff spells and moving without attacking in the first round of combat (or any round) -- maneuvering for position typically happens at the start of combat anyway, so that gives him the time he needs to buff up if the party has been surprised. And if he wants to attack and cast magic missile or enlarge or whatever in the same round at -4, that's still great -- no other class can ever do this, and at low levels most monsters probably aren't going to have a high AC anyway. If you're going up against high AC monsters at low level, then just don't cast and attack in the same round. I feel no pity for the magus -- it's a very good class, and all classes have to have some give and take for balance.
The magus will get multiple attacks at level 8 (+6/+1), so making a full attack and casting a spell in the same round would only be at +2/-3, and if the magus has a strength of just 14, buffs like bull’s strength or enlarge person on, and at least a +1 magic weapon (very likely by level 8), his chances to hit are still going to be fair (+7/+2 in this example), _and_ he gets to cast a spell like fireball in the same round on top of it all if he wants. Hardly anything to complain about.
All said and done, the magus is a blend of fighter and wizard -- the "gish". He should not be the best melee fighter in the group, and he shouldn't be the best arcane caster in the group. Those realms belong to the fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, wizard and sorcerer. But he is decent at doing both things, something no other class can do.
One could argue that the ability to cast shocking grasp in the 1st round so you can use it to buff the damage of your sword strike in the 2nd round is pretty much pointless unless you start far away (more than 30 ft.) from your target. Then:
1st round - shocking grasp, then move
2nd round - move, then Spellstrike
If not, one is better served to simply cast shocking grasp in the usual way in the first round (and have a better chance of getting at least the electricity damage through, since it will be against touch AC and not against full AC like with Spellstrike) and then attack normally in the 2nd round.
As far as Spell Combat is concerned, unless I am mistaken, it is supposed to be the fundamental class ability of the Magus and it is one that is both situational (as it should be; not all circumstances warrant the use of Spell Combat) and finite (as it should be; one should not be allowed to use it ad infinitum, though one could with 0-level spells, but I hardly think risking to do absolutely nothing is worth trying to cast a 0-level spell every time that you try to make a melee attack). And it should have penalties since it is a powerful ability and a difficult one to master, mixing swordplay with spellcasting effectively. However, seeing as it is the class's signature ability and you get it at 2nd level, you should not have to wait until 8th level and its Improved version for it to be a viable option.
After all, if I were to start thinking of the abilities of other classes, I do not remember many of them being so severely penalized.
E.g. The rogue has the Sneak Attack situational signature ability, which gives between 1d6 and 10d6 extra damage to his attacks and all he has to do is position himself in a flanking position (which also grants him a +2 bonus to those attacks). No penalties there, except if you count that it does not work against some specific types of enemies. No penalty to attack for attempting to find a soft spot on many times a heavily armored opponent.
E.g. The witch has Hexes that she can actually use ad infinitum (with the exception of some of them being unable to be used on the same target within 24 hours) and some, like Evil Eye, seem pretty annoying, especially combined with Cackle I believe. Again, no penalties. No concentration checks for trying to accomplish something.
E.g. The wizard has Schools which grant abilities both continuous or passive and abilities with uses per day as soon as he starts out at 1st level. No penalties. No concentration or Spellcraft checks for the Conjurer who wants to make his summon monster spells last longer, no price for the extra damage an Evoker imbues his spells with.
Nobody, or almost nobody, says that Spell Combat should not have penalties, just not that steep as is currently the case. There have been some very nice suggestions, ranging from the simple idea to lower the penalty a little to using a different progression akin to the monk's flurry.
And I agree, the Magus should by no means be as effective a fighter as, well, the fighter, barbarian, paladin or ranger (and that is already accomplished by the class's medium BAB and d8 hit dice) or as effective a wizard as, well, the wizard, sorcerer or witch (and that is already accomplished by the class's limited spell levels and spell selection and progression). And quite frankly I do not want the above to change. I like these parts of him the way they are. What I would like are some class abilities that actually seem viable and useful as soon as you get them. After all, if you cannot use them -and I find Spell Combat unusable at 2nd level- what is the point of getting them at that particular level?
Truth be told, I would still play this class if it came out the way it is. I just would rarely use Spellstrike. Also, I would probably never use Spell Combat until I reached 8th level and got the Improved version. Not to mention I would probably never go above medium armor -if even that- seeing as I find the Magus more suited to lighter armors rather than, say, the encumbering full plate armor.
Just my opinions of course. :-)
I will say that you could potentially use spell combat with thrown weapons...I was actually considering a Magus who uses throwing daggers or axes and spell combat. Could be interesting, at least. Of course, he'd need quick draw, and I am not going to suggest it's an ideal idea.
I will say that you could potentially use spell combat with thrown weapons...I was actually considering a Magus who uses throwing daggers or axes and spell combat. Could be interesting, at least. Of course, he'd need quick draw, and I am not going to suggest it's an ideal idea.
Even with thrown weapons you have to cast defensively. Spell combat requires Defensive casting.
I think the designers' intent was for spell combat to be similar to fighting defensively, which costs a -4 to your attacks. Is it something you use a great deal at level 2? Not that much, unless you find yourself in a situation where +2 AC is absolutely necessary.
With that in mind, I don't see the -4 being "unfair". What I would like to see, though is for the concentration check to be less of 60/40 chance of success. That is just too dodgy for both actions to be failures. Perhaps drop the -2 to concentration checks altogether and just have them roll a normal casting defensively roll? Then if you want to min/max towards improving your chances you can build a magus who does spell combat more reliably. Even in that cast the players has spent significant resources to get more of a guarantee. Give them combat casting as a bonus feat and the percent lost to-hit is the same percent gained to cast defensively.
One could argue that the ability to cast shocking grasp in the 1st round so you can use it to buff the damage of your sword strike in the 2nd round is pretty much pointless unless you start far away (more than 30 ft.) from your target. Then:
1st round - shocking grasp, then move
2nd round - move, then Spellstrike
You are forgetting one thing in your sequence there. They still have to draw their weapon. Which at first level and a BaB of +0, is a move action by itself.
|
Doing something that no other class can do is not a good enough reason to make a new class. If it were, we would see a glut of new base classes that were just humdrum hybrids bloating up the rulebooks.
Spell Combat should be part of the new Magus but it shouldn't be the reason it exists. I could see Spell Combat being a feat progression for a multi-class martial/arcane character rather than making a new class for it.
The Magus needs a clear concept, a role to fill, and a simpler and dependable mechanic at it's core.
In my opinion.