Say I'm a summoner of the same level as your magus...
---
Your magus has a medium BAB. My eidolon has a BAB equal to that of your magus +1.
Your magus has armor. My eidolon has comparable or superior natural armor.
Your magus probably has 5 hit points or so more than my eidolon before Con modifiers. I can use life link to prevent my eidolon from taking a lot more than 5 points of damage.
Your magus fights with a single one-handed weapon. My eidolon can too, and he can also have three or more natural attacks.
Your magus can use arcane weapon to improve his attacks at 4th level. My eidolon can use evolutions to improve his attacks at 1st level.
Your magus is Small or Medium without buffs. My eidolon quickly becomes Large or Huge without buffs.
Your magus can full attack with penalties while defensively casting a spell. My eidolon can full attack without penalties while I'm moving around and casting a spell from a safe distance.
Your magus can benefit from his own buff spells. My eidolon can benefit from my comparable buff spells.
Your magus has 6-level spellcasting and few early-entry spells. My eidolon hangs with me, my 6-level casting, and my mostly level-appropriate spells.
---
A summoner and eidolon working together have more actions than a magus using spell combat, the eidolon is more effective in melee combatant than the magus, and the summoner's spells are more level-appropriate than those of a magus.
In other words, a summoner contributes everything a magus can to an adventuring party, only better.
If a magus gained Combat Casting as a bonus feat, and took no penalty on concentration checks while using spell combat, and took no penalty on attack rolls while using spell combat, he would still be contributing less effectively to a combat encounter than a summoner of equal level, because his total attack bonus would be one point behind that of the summoner's eidolon, he would be casting defensively while the summoner was casting safely from afar, his spells would be less level-appropriate past 7th level or so, and he would have fewer actions per round than the summoner and eidolon together.
For a magus to be the best class at combining spells with melee attacks, he needs to be able to contribute as much or more to a party than a summoner and eidolon working in tandem, because those two contribute spells and melee attacks, respectively. To compete, the magus probably needs fewer penalties (or, better, none at all) when using his signature spell combat ability. He could probably also benefit from more early entry spells.
(Either that, or make him a full BAB half caster so he fills a less-crowded niche instead of competing with alchemists, bards, clerics, druids, eldritch knights, inquisitors, oracles, and summoners to be the best of nine available caster-turned-melee switch hitter class options.)
My Magus waves a notification of beta playtesting in your face and your eidelon is sent to the naughty corner ;)
Magus will never be full BAB
he might get monk flurry BAB progression on his spell combat if we're lucky which would help alot
your eidelon can't cast are control AOE spells and neither can your summoner
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Phasics wrote: My Magus waves a notification of beta playtesting in your face and your eidelon is sent to the naughty corner ;)
Magus will never be full BAB
he might get monk flurry BAB progression on his spell combat if we're lucky which would help alot
your eidelon can't cast are control AOE spells and neither can your summoner
Note: 'pit' spells, black tentacles, 'wall' spells- all on the summoner list.
Phasics wrote: your eidelon can't cast are control AOE spells and neither can your summoner Dude, I can control my eidolon's battlefield with a 3rd-level black tentacles spell. 3rd level! To say nothing of grease, pit spells, wall spells, and summoned air elementals using whirlwind to toss everyone around. For battlefield control, blasty AOE spells have got nothing on conjuration. ;)
Edit: Ninja'd! By a matter of seconds.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Epic Meepo wrote: Phasics wrote: your eidelon can't cast are control AOE spells and neither can your summoner Dude, I can control my eidolon's battlefield with a 3rd-level black tentacles spell. 3rd level! To say nothing of grease, pit spells, wall spells, and summoned air elementals using whirlwind to toss everyone around. For battlefield control, blasty AOE spells have got nothing on conjuration. ;)
Edit: Ninja'd! By a matter of seconds. Woot! My 1st Ninja-ing. Also, that 3rd level Black Tentacles is extra tasty with lesser metamagic rods. (So is Greater Invis.)
gah too many ninja's my eyes !
A. Its beta, and to make matters worse, teh concept of gish, spellsword, eldrich knight and dusblade, has been tried quite often in recent years.
More and more reason to get in right, but currently you look at a spellcasting class without the new spells. Take away your every Summoner spells using the the word Eidolon...
B.Why would he bother to beat of your Eidolon if you can beat up you?
A spellstrike (insert nasty spell here) can knock you out, and once thats done they Eidolon is a goner.
C. While a Summoner is a nice guy to have in your party, lets give the poor Magus a chance to be called broken.^^
Banpai, I think the post was not about a duel between eidolon and magus, but them both fighting the same ennemy. Most won't have the intelligence or perception (see invisible etc.) to attack the summoner.
Epic Meepo, this is actually the best comparison to show the weakness of the magus so far.
But as others mentioned, this is just the first playtest, so Paizo got plenty of time to improve the class. I think that most people think of the magus as weak and I'm pretty sure that Paizo got that. Probably they wanted to sure not to overpower the class.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Richard Leonhart wrote: Banpai, I think the post was not about a duel between eidolon and magus, but them both fighting the same ennemy. Most won't have the intelligence or perception (see invisible etc.) to attack the summoner.
Epic Meepo, this is actually the best comparison to show the weakness of the magus so far.
But as others mentioned, this is just the first playtest, so Paizo got plenty of time to improve the class. I think that most people think of the magus as weak and I'm pretty sure that Paizo got that. Probably they wanted to sure not to overpower the class.
The Magus unlike every other base class is going to have an inherent weakness of trying to do two nonsynergetic roles. The magus will NEVER be the class for optimizers as to get it to satisfy those standards would require unbalancing it against everyone else. The Magus is going to be a class played for flavor, for choice, but not one for epeen.
Phasics wrote:
Magus will never be full BAB
And this is why he will always suck.
Banpai wrote: A spellstrike (insert nasty spell here) can knock you out, and once thats done they Eidolon is a goner. If it can do that then NOT using spellstrike can do it with greater chance of success ...
LazarX wrote: The Magus unlike every other base class is going to have an inherent weakness of trying to do two nonsynergetic roles. Why do that then? Why create a martial/caster hybrid with so many DD and other spells which make him so much more appropriate as a ranged combatant? Why not just give him touch spells and swift buff spells so you get some room to give him better channeling without overpowering him?
He doesn't just have two non synergistic roles, it's worse than that ... he's competent at casting, but incompetent at melee combat and since trying to combine the two makes his casting worse he defacto doesn't have a melee role at all. The fluff pushes him into something he can't really do.
Epic Meepo wrote: Say I'm a summoner of the same level as your magus...
---
Your magus has a medium BAB. My eidolon has a BAB equal to that of your magus +1.
Pay closer attention to the chart. The Eidolon's BAB is 1 / HD, but their HD go up in an unusual fashion. The Eidolon is either Magus+1 or Magus.
Quote: Your magus has armor. My eidolon has comparable or superior natural armor. The magus can have magical armor. The Eidolon can't. Additionally, any item slot you put on your Eidolon is one you don't have.
Quote: Your magus probably has 5 hit points or so more than my eidolon before Con modifiers. I can use life link to prevent my eidolon from taking a lot more than 5 points of damage. Read that ability. Your intro line of "say I'm a summoner" makes it pretty clear that you aren't. Assume your Eidolon has 13 Con, which he probably does. Further assume that your Eidolon has 6 hit points at 1st level, which he does in Society play. Now assume he takes a hit for 7. What happens? Well, he goes to -1. He's unconscious. Can you use lifelink? No, no you cannot. Not until he takes enough damage to return him to his plane (aka kill him), which is enough to take him to -13. So that ability only saves him from death- it doesn't keep him up and active. How does your unconscious Eidolon fare versus the Magus?
Quote: Your magus fights with a single one-handed weapon. My eidolon can too, and he can also have three or more natural attacks. At first level he's limited to 3 attacks. It's much later that he can attack with weapons and also natural attacks.
Quote: Your magus can use arcane weapon to improve his attacks at 4th level. My eidolon can use evolutions to improve his attacks at 1st level. Um, ok, anything can "improve attacks". The question is, by how much? Making your 1d4 claws into 1d6 claws at level 1 doesn't seem stupendously game breaking, does it? I'm not saying 1st level Eidolons are weak offensively, but comparing these two seems odd.
Quote: Your magus is Small or Medium without buffs. My eidolon quickly becomes Large or Huge without buffs. He becomes Large at 8th level and Huge at 14th. Is that quickly?
Quote: Your magus can full attack with penalties while defensively casting a spell. My eidolon can full attack without penalties while I'm moving around and casting a spell from a safe distance. Now this here is a more signifigant point. It comes back to the fundamental action advantage of having two linked creatures on the board. This is a core advantage of the summoner. I would argue that the magus spell list is far too limiting in many ways, and doesn't go to "high enough level". But I don't think that's an issue related to the summoner.
Quote: Your magus can benefit from his own buff spells. My eidolon can benefit from my comparable buff spells. Both classes seem well adapted to buffing themselves and their allies.
Quote: Your magus has 6-level spellcasting and few early-entry spells. My eidolon hangs with me, my 6-level casting, and my mostly level-appropriate spells. I think the Magus needs more powerful spells if he's going to stay like that, I 100% agree with this assessment.
Quote: A summoner and eidolon working together have more actions than a magus using spell combat, the eidolon is more effective in melee combatant than the magus, and the summoner's spells are more level-appropriate than those of a magus. They also have a real issue having good saves on both creatures, the summoner's actions are frequently only fractionally effective, and the Eidolon will lack hit points compared to a Magus quite easily. They can also take "double damage" from an aoe effect.
I would not expect any class to have more actions than a summoner and Eidolon working together. I would not expect any class without a bonded companion to be equal to that number either, much as I would not expect the Magus to have more available spells per days than a sorcerer, or more AC than a fighter.
Quote: In other words, a summoner contributes everything a magus can to an adventuring party, only better. Is this true? Really true? The Magus spell list is certainly more diverse, and he's a prepared Int-based caster. He also has attack spells. Mostly I'd say that his issue is his lack of early entry spells. Shouldn't this guy have like meteor swarm or something? Meh. Maybe just me.
Of course the Magus doesn't have Giant Form, most of his polymorph forms rule out most spellcasting except Form of the Dragon I (and he will still need Eschew Materials).
Bizarrely enough, I have experience in a scenario that is pertinent to this conversation. In a 3.5 game I ran, one of the characters (Liv) had a cohort (Zenny) that was a split personality made from a nonsubsuming Mind Seed. Later the Mind Seed had an existential crisis and even later, she received her own body (this was over the course of more than 6 months of play experience). So comparing the two of them in the same body to the two of them apart is actually rather apropos to a discussion of Summoner + Eidolon vs Magus + Magus's extra actions:
At first one might have thought that Liv and Zenny in the same body would have some pretty big disadvantages over having two characters on the field--to wit:
Hit Points--The existence of the cohort basically did not provide extra base hit points in any way, whereas if the two were separate, they would have had their own pools of hit points.
Positioning--They could not flank together, threaten together, scout out separately, or move to handle different parts of the battle.
Body Sharing--Despite the fact that they could take mental actions as they liked, the physical body was limited to one standard and one move action per round.
Saves--Worse still, one failed Fortitude or Reflex save doomed both of them to whatever fate lay in wait.
------------------
However, this setup wound up being much more advantageous than expected:
Hit Points--With both in the same body, the cohort could provide mental-only buffs for AC or temporary hit points while the character did something else.
Positioning--The character could move into an advantageous position for the cohort to perform some mental action. They could share the AoO for moving through a threatened area.
Body Sharing--They only had to worry about protecting one body, so buffs and magic items could all go to that cause. This was the most powerful advantage.
Saves--Not as bad as you would think due to the buffs and items mentioned in Body Sharing.
------------------
When they were separate, they did not have nearly the limitations that a Summoner/Eidolon pair does, but they still found the following issues:
Hit Points--Area of Effect spells were now hitting them both, and only the cohort could provide lots of temporary hit points to herself. The Cleric had to spend more effort to heal them both as well.
Positioning--They needed to move around a lot to deliver touch spells to each other, and they took a lot more AoOs from colossal god beasts and the like.
Body Separation--The cohort was pretty screwed (though nowhere near as screwed as the Summoner / Eidolon who can't even both have a Cloak of Resistance or a physical stat item), as her stuff was on the character, and the party wasn't keen on giving her the money she felt she deserved. They also were a lot weaker without stacking buffs.
Saves--The cohort took a hit to saves from the loss of the Cloak of Resistance (she bought a weaker one, which the Eidolon and Summoner can't do, though) and the loss of the character's high Fort save. The character took a hit from the loss of the cohort's buffs to saves.
------------------
Conclusion? They were actually stronger together than apart. This had not been obvious to me before it happened.
Richard Leonhart wrote: Banpai, I think the post was not about a duel between eidolon and magus, but them both fighting the same ennemy. Most won't have the intelligence or perception (see invisible etc.) to attack the summoner.
Epic Meepo, this is actually the best comparison to show the weakness of the magus so far.
But as others mentioned, this is just the first playtest, so Paizo got plenty of time to improve the class. I think that most people think of the magus as weak and I'm pretty sure that Paizo got that. Probably they wanted to sure not to overpower the class.
Yeah, well, I just though it prudet to point out the obvious weakness of the Eidolon - the summoner.
On the other hand once they beef up the Magus spell list, so Spellstrike does actually make sense. Giving them some arcanas I would actually consider taking (the simple ones like empower/quicken... are ok) someting like the witch hexes (find me a witch, that has enough hexes^^).
Rogue Eidolon wrote: [counterargument] Your counterargument relies on having two characters in one body, thus having a full normal number of actions plus an extra mental action every round, none of which face any further restrictions.
The magus can't do that. The magus can combine one specific type of standard action with one specific type of full-round action, with penalties to both. So the magus is considerably less effective than your character that gets two turns (one physical, one mental) without penalty.
Edit: In any case, I stand by my conclusion. The magus isn't horribly unplayable or anything, but if its suppsoed to be the spell-and-melee king of action economy, spell combat needs to lose most or all of its penalties.
If the magus got Combat Casting as a bonus feat, spell combat imposed no concentration penalty, and spell combat worked like flurry of blows (the magus takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls but uses his level as his BAB), the magus would compare much more favorably to a summoner and eidolon.
Just at a glance, it's round one, and the Magus and Summoner are talking smack across the dinner table.
Summoner:' My Eidolon is better, Nyah!'
Magus: 'Suck it, Bhargest Breath!'
*FIGHT!*
Initiative is rolled, Magus wins...
My 4th Lvl Magus (I'm playing one tonight) swings, using Spellstrike...
hits your Flat-Footed Summoner with my Keen (Arcane Weapon, already magic)for D6+4D6 Shocking Grasp+Str (Mine is a 4). I'm hardly a Min-Maxer with this guy, as I JUST heard about it, but, +8 1D6+5+4D6 Elec,Crits on a 15+ isn't anything to sneeze at... Feel free to take me apart.
We rolled stats, Btw, with me getting an 18 Str in the bargain (Woohoo! It is just ...awesome to roll an 18, well to play period, I'm usually the DM, but I digress)
Your AC is, what, 'maybe' 14 Flat? That means that I have to roll a '6' to hit you.
If I roll a '15', chances are ...a '6' on the next roll, that I will be doing 2D6+10+4D6 Electricity... Good luck, buddy.
-Uriel
Ok, or the Eidolon wins initiative and busts out with a pounce into full attack. 4th level so it has gore, pounce, claws, +2 Str. I'll assume a Strength of 19 here but it might be 20. BAB of +3, so that would be +6 to hit, with 1d6+4, 1d4+4, 1d4+4, 1d6+4. Is the Magus's flatfooted good enough to be cool with that? 2d6+2d4+16 isn't as much as the crit or anything, but it's still a hell of a lot.
Now, can we dispense with discussions on duels between low level characters with melee builds wailing on each other starting next to each other? I can already tell you that the guy with Improved Initiative has spent his feat correctly, if that's the only kind of fighting that ever happens!
Quote: but if its suppsoed to be the spell-and-melee king of action economy I don't really think this is the point, actually.
Uriel393 wrote: My 4th Lvl Magus (I'm playing one tonight) swings, using Spellstrike... Oh, so you were holding the charge on a spell were ya?
Uriel393 wrote: [magus one-shots summoner] Fair enough. A magus can one-shot a summoner. Now compare what the magus and the summoner contribute to an adventuring party.
The magus can contribute a spell and a full attack each round during combat.
A summoner and eidolon have the same action economy, but without taking any penalties. Plus, the summoner and eidolon have much better skills for use in non-combat situations.
Ignoring all the dueling silliness, I think this brings out a very solid point that the Magus as-is is significantly weaker at filling its niche than other classes, even when then niche is the 5th wheel (ie, Bard, Summoner)
ps: Lets not forget the Summoner is also hasting his party at level 4, as opposed to level 7. Thats three levels of win where, in my experience, most games take place.
Pitting one class against another is not a valid comparison and does not help the playtest. Lets focus on playing the class and seeing how it works. Full BAB, 3/4 BAB...Just play the class and give a report instead of airing stale complaints.
Shar Tahl wrote: Pitting one class against another is not a valid comparison and does not help the playtest. Lets focus on playing the class and seeing how it works. Full BAB, 3/4 BAB...Just play the class and give a report instead of airing stale complaints. I dunno, the tone is confrontational but the comparison is valid.
Basically, if what the magus does can be done by the summoner and then some, you're punishing the magus for trying to play to his concept. Punishing players for not being the wizard isn't really in keeping with what I understand to be the Pathfinder philosophy.
I mean, the basic premise of both classes is surprisingly the same. Leaving aside talk of action economy, each of them is a guy who is a fighter and a spellcaster at the same time and can do both at once, just the summoner is split between two bodies when he does it. Why is the magus penalized for his gimmick when the summoner isn't?
Benly wrote: I mean, the basic premise of both classes is surprisingly the same. Leaving aside talk of action economy, each of them is a guy who is a fighter and a spellcaster at the same time and can do both at once, just the summoner is split between two bodies when he does it. Why is the magus penalized for his gimmick when the summoner isn't? Because these concepts aren't the same. Being two people with wierd magic item requirements is just fundamentally different than being one person. Also note that the Summoner's list is much more buff oriented. There's not really any attack spell on that list.
I just don't think you should be comparing this guy to the summoner, or even the druid. Absolutely anyone could campaign for buffs for any class by comparing themselves to someone who is really TWO people by going the "action economy" route.
Uriel393 wrote: Just at a glance, it's round one, and the Magus and Summoner are talking smack across the dinner table.
Summoner:' My Eidolon is better, Nyah!'
Magus: 'Suck it, Bhargest Breath!'
*FIGHT!*
Initiative is rolled, Magus wins...
Less likely as you need Sre, Dex, and Int unlike Summoner who needs Dex and casting stat and you need Combat casting. Thus he has likely higher Initiative.
Quote:
My 4th Lvl Magus (I'm playing one tonight) swings, using Spellstrike...
hits your Flat-Footed Summoner with my Keen (Arcane Weapon, already magic)for D6+4D6 Shocking Grasp+Str (Mine is a 4). I'm hardly a Min-Maxer with this guy, as I JUST heard about it, but, +8 1D6+5+4D6 Elec,Crits on a 15+ isn't anything to sneeze at... Feel free to take me apart.
Can't unless you roll Concentration for Spell combat or not use Spell strike. Remember Spell strike works next round unless you combine with Spell combat.
The Magus isn't the DuskBladed he can't channel in same action like Duskblade.
Quote:
We rolled stats, Btw, with me getting an 18 Str in the bargain (Woohoo! It is just ...awesome to roll an 18, well to play period, I'm usually the DM, but I digress)
Your AC is, what, 'maybe' 14 Flat? That means that I have to roll a '6' to hit you.
If I roll a '15', chances are ...a '6' on the next roll, that I will be doing 2D6+10+4D6 Electricity... Good luck, buddy.
-Uriel
That assumes you win Initiative which is unlikely.
Forget attacking, just have the Eidolon grapple.
Magus is now done for.
If having ranged DD spells on his spell list puts him over the edge compared to the summoner and forces the Magus to be pretty poor at combining his spell casting with his melee attacks then I think the DD spells should go away.
ProfessorCirno wrote: Forget attacking, just have the Eidolon grapple.
Magus is now done for.
I'd acutally sitch up your Eidelon with cross secting walls of force and then sit a bunch of DOT spells on him to take him down evenutally ;)
but again player vs player is not really D&D ;)
Magus can get a familiar and could in thoery beast shape VI it into something to run interference with your eidelon while he wails on your summoner.
of course summoner can just summon monster spam which no other solo character can aqdeqautely deal with.
so you can't really compare them this way.
cfalcon wrote:
Because these concepts aren't the same. Being two people with wierd magic item requirements is just fundamentally different than being one person. Also note that the Summoner's list is much more buff oriented. There's not really any attack spell on that list.
I just don't think you should be comparing this guy to the summoner, or even the druid. Absolutely anyone could campaign for buffs for any class by comparing themselves to someone who is really TWO people by going the "action economy" route.
The thing is, yeah, it's fundamentally different flavorwise, but the numbers underneath are very similar. And I think it's a bad idea to punish people who like the "I am a two-fisting badass" flavor of the magus if the numbers don't bear it out.
The summoner doesn't get much direct damage, but he does get the walls and Black Tentacles at a lower level than the magus does and gets a good assortment of controls and save-or-screwed spells. The summoner has a lot of buffs but they don't flood out his spell list to such an extent that he doesn't attack with magic.
And I'm not saying "every class should be able to attack and cast every turn", and I specifically said I'm not interested in arguing about "action economies". I'm saying that the class whose flavor is that he can cast spells and attack at the same time should be, at the level of underlying numbers, as good at it as the guys whose flavor doesn't say that. In that light, the magus's extensive penalties to cast-and-attack don't serve any good purpose except to make him worse at it than summoners.
LazarX wrote: The Magus is going to be a class played for flavor, for choice, but not one for epeen. Rewarding flavour, choice, and concept with mechanical suckitude, and extolling mechanical suckitude as some sort of true roleplayer's badge of honour is a great way to discourage flavour, choice, concept, and roleplaying.
Wasn't there a thread some time ago about how well-built eidolons could out-tank and out-dps even well-built fighters?
My Magus can beat up your Summoner!
..and he knows where you sleep!
*shakes fist*
JRR wrote: Phasics wrote:
Magus will never be full BAB
And this is why he will always suck. My Psychic Warrior would like to have words with you*
*
LazarX wrote: The Magus is going to be a class played for flavor, for choice, but not one for epeen. A mechanically terrible class is one that isn't played, regardless of the flavor. How many CWar samurais did you see?
Likewise, I play mechanically good classes for the flavor, for the fun, and for the choice - not for my "ROLEPLAYING" stiffy.
Matthew Morris wrote: My Psychic Warrior would like to have words with you... In my experience with the psychic warrior, he worked well as a melee class because he could heal himself. In particular, he could hostile empathic transfer damage back onto his opponent. To do that, the magus would need vampiric touch (or a similar magus arcana ability that worked with any touch spell).
Matthew Morris wrote: JRR wrote: Phasics wrote:
Magus will never be full BAB
And this is why he will always suck. My Psychic Warrior would like to have words with you*
*** spoiler omitted ** Noncore and irrelevant.
JRR wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: JRR wrote: Phasics wrote:
Magus will never be full BAB
And this is why he will always suck. My Psychic Warrior would like to have words with you*
*** spoiler omitted ** Noncore and irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant, when the game is cross compatible and the beta psychic warrior loses nothing compared to 3.5?
More importantly, how is it irrelevant when the Psy was brought as an example of the concept? They're just as comparable to the magus as the duskblade is.
JRR wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: JRR wrote: Phasics wrote:
Magus will never be full BAB
And this is why he will always suck. My Psychic Warrior would like to have words with you*
*** spoiler omitted ** Noncore and irrelevant.
The only irrelevant thing is that it's non-core :p
The psychic warrior does not exist in Pathfinder. Therefore it cannot be used as a benchmark. May as well say Derek Jeter sucks as a shortstop because he can't pole vault 15 feet.
JRR wrote: The psychic warrior does not exist in Pathfinder. Therefore it cannot be used as a benchmark. May as well say Derek Jeter sucks as a shortstop because he can't pole vault 15 feet. Nor does the duskblade exist in pathfinder. They can still be used and the goal of pathfinder includes not weakening a class, so if your PF base class is being defeated by a 3.5 base class of similar role, something is wrong.
Also, Dreamscarred. http://www.dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewforum/f=2.html
They're making the PF version of the old XPH.
JRR wrote: The psychic warrior does not exist in Pathfinder. Therefore it cannot be used as a benchmark. May as well say Derek Jeter sucks as a shortstop because he can't pole vault 15 feet. It's more like saying that Baseball Player X (I don't know baseball) isn't as good at doing baseball things as someone who was a baseball player years ago.
By which I mean it is entirely valid
ProfessorCirno wrote: JRR wrote: The psychic warrior does not exist in Pathfinder. Therefore it cannot be used as a benchmark. May as well say Derek Jeter sucks as a shortstop because he can't pole vault 15 feet. It's more like saying that Baseball Player X (I don't know baseball) isn't as good at doing baseball things as someone who was a baseball player years ago.
By which I mean it is entirely valid +1
I'm so glad I have these threads to keep me entertained out here in the field.
Recent threads in Round 1: Magus
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
