Facts:
9th level using Spell Combat with 18 Int/18 Str
Casting 1st level spells: 85% success
Casting 2nd level spells: 75% success
Casting 3rd level spells: 65% success
Attacking a Hill Giant (CR 7):
First attack: 40% chance to hit
Second attack: 15% chance to hit
Very effective, that.
Assuming you are casting a 1st level spell that is not offensive, your chance to pull off both successfully is what? 34%?
You do that for four rounds, see who comes out alive.
That you keep bringing up fireballs and lightning bolts tells me you don't know what you're talking about.
Tell me how "playtesting it in a real setting" would give different information then what I've supplied, if you could, seeing as how I already showed that playtesting the battle cleric went right along how I said it would.
Make a 9th level battle cleric that can have the same damage output, on the first round of combat.
Combat generally last about 4 rounds, which is how long it will take to put up half the buffs you are calling for.
Run an actual play test with actual combat in an actual setting, then post it.
That is how people actually play.
Do you literally get ambushed every single time you fight someone?
An offhand weapon that if it does hit does far more damage than any offhand weapon.
If you "hit" after you manage to actually attack.
You don't really know how math works, do you?
You don't really know how to debate respectfully, do you?
At 9th level the Magus can do 9d6 damage each round with a spell AND attack with a weapon. An enhanced weapon at that.
Play it and then comment.
I've play tested battle clerics.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Do you know what "Quicken Spell" means?
How about "Extend Spell?"
Also, 9d6 damage at level 9 is worthless. It's seriously just terrible. A CR 9 creature is the Frost Giant, standing at 133 HP. You won't just fight one of them, you'd fight several. And 9d6? Congrats on chipping away ~31-32 damage. Oh wait, that barely scratches him.
Quicken Spell = 15th level to quicken just divine power. 17th to quicken righteous might. At 9th level, except for quickened divine favor (occupying your *only* non-bonus 5th level slot), it's meaningless. Extend spell is also virtually meaningless for round per level spells.
Hmm.. Fireball.. vs. Frost Giants... odd choice for comparison. And several of them? 4 Frost Giants would be an epic encounter.. why not! Let's do it!
So 31-32 damage * 1.5 (cold subtype) * .85 (average damage after their 30% chance to make a non-maxed out DC 18 save) * .85 (actual chance of casting the spell, 18Int, Combat casting) * 4 frost giants (they're big, but still probably all able to be hit) = 137 damage..
Plus attacking? Let's say low Str 16, +4 weapon (+2, +2 bond), likely weapon focus. And since we're being nice (no flaming weapon), let's give him the hasted assault arcana. That's BAB 6 +3 +4 +1 +1 -2 = +13/+13/+8 for an average of 1.7 hits. Damage 1d8 +3 +4 * 1.7 = 20.
So 54 damage to one frost giant (almost half its hp), and 34 to the other three. SOLO (if he lived), he'd almost kill one giant, and take three others to 1/2 of their hp, in two rounds, for 2 third level spells and 1 2nd (for hasted assault).
So by the time the cleric was buffed, the battle would almost be over.
|
Do you literally get ambushed every single time you fight someone?That you keep bringing up fireballs and lightning bolts tells me you don't know what you're talking about.
Tell me how "playtesting it in a real setting" would give different information then what I've supplied, if you could, seeing as how I already showed that playtesting the battle cleric went right along how I said it would.
Make a 9th level battle cleric that can have the same damage output, on the first round of combat.
Combat generally last about 4 rounds, which is how long it will take to put up half the buffs you are calling for.
Run an actual play test with actual combat in an actual setting, then post it.
That is how people actually play.
You are able to fully buff before you go into every combat?
Facts:
9th level using Spell Combat with 18 Int/18 Str
Casting 1st level spells: 85% success
Casting 2nd level spells: 75% success
Casting 3rd level spells: 65% successAttacking a Hill Giant (CR 7):
First attack: 40% chance to hit
Second attack: 15% chance to hitVery effective, that.
Assuming you are casting a 1st level spell that is not offensive, your chance to pull off both successfully is what? 34%?
Almost a guaranteed hit, with 95% chance for a second level spell.
If you're going to argue that someone hasn't done that math, it's usually better to do the math right, would you agree?
|
|
Facts:
9th level using Spell Combat with 18 Int/18 Str
Casting 1st level spells: 85% success
Casting 2nd level spells: 75% success
Casting 3rd level spells: 65% successAttacking a Hill Giant (CR 7):
First attack: 40% chance to hit
Second attack: 15% chance to hitVery effective, that.
Assuming you are casting a 1st level spell that is not offensive, your chance to pull off both successfully is what? 34%?
You do that for four rounds, see who comes out alive.
No need to give me the 18, I'll play it legit.
Hill Giant has 21 AC and 85 hit points.
At 9th, base is +6/+1. Let's assume I've got 16 str (reasonable between magic items and stats at 9th I think) so make that +9/+4. Let's say I have a +2 weapon, reasonable at 9th. No we are +11/+6. At 4th and 8th my arcane weapon gets a bonus that stacks with existing bonuses, so now I am +13/+8. I assume I'll take weapon focus in there somewhere (I can take weapon specialization at 10th), so put me at +14/+9, before the -2 to attack with Spell Combat. I'll assume I'm not going to use any of my arcana bonuses burning spells.
Now I'm also going to take combat casting (I do agree this should be added at 1st) so mix that with my 9th level caster and I've got a +13 to my concentration check, which at this level no longer has a penalty, and if I miss I can always use my concentrate arcana to get another roll at an additional +4 once a day.
Of course, I could also hang back and blast from distance. I could cast haste to get more attacks. I could fly above him and blast down. I could use bull's strength and enlarge person...
Basically, the hill giant doesn't worry me much.
Regardless I'm feeling fairly safe wearing medium armor.
I have to agree with ciretose above me, at least at first glance.
However, if it is not too much bother, could you give me an equivalent scenario at 2nd or 3rd level, when he gets the Spell Combat ability? Preferably without Combat Casting, because at the moment it is not given for free and, unless the Magus is human, he might not have it at 2nd level (say, because he chose Arcane Strike at 1st level).
My main argument is that an ability should be useful and useable as soon as you get it, otherwise there is really no point getting it at such low levels. If it works, fine. But if it does not, one might as well remove it entirely from 2nd level and just give the Improved version at 8th level. A class and an ability should indeed be balanced, but that should be the case across the board, not be sub-par at the lower end of the level spectrum just because it gets better from mid-levels up.
Also, again in my opinion, there should be the flexibility for people to be able to build their Magi more or less any way they want -within certain limits of course- and still have them be useful, not brilliant or amazing, just useful. If only human Magi with the Desperate Focus trait and the Combat Casting feat, Str and Int of 16 and sufficient Dex and Con (meaning Wis and Cha probably go to the single-digits) work, then there is an inherent flaw with the class.
As far as I am concerned, I plan to play an elven Magus with a longsword and balanced stats if or when I get the chance to play the class, regardless of how the final version looks, because I like the flavor. However, it would be nice if I did not have to wait until 7th or 8th level to actually play the class the way it is supposed to be played (or, if you do not like the phrase 'supposed to be played', then 'to actually use its signature ability, an ability whose very name at the moment actually means what the Magus is trained to do, effectively'). Still, at the lower levels, I would probably never ever use Spell Combat and rarely use Spellstrike the way they are now, but I would be perfectly content to, say, open with an offensive spell and then, if push came to shove, simply swing my trusty sword. :-)
|
|
I have to agree with ciretose above me, at least at first glance.
However, if it is not too much bother, could you give me an equivalent scenario at 2nd or 3rd level, when he gets the Spell Combat ability? Preferably without Combat Casting, because at the moment it is not given for free and, unless the Magus is human, he might not have it at 2nd level (say, because he chose Arcane Strike at 1st level).
My main argument is that an ability should be useful and useable as soon as you get it, otherwise there is really no point getting it at such low levels. If it works, fine. But if it does not, one might as well remove it entirely from 2nd level and just give the Improved version at 8th level. A class and an ability should indeed be balanced, but that should be the case across the board, not be sub-par at the lower end of the level spectrum just because it gets better from mid-levels up.
Also, again in my opinion, there should be the flexibility for people to be able to build their Magi more or less any way they want -within certain limits of course- and still have them be useful, not brilliant or amazing, just useful. If only human Magi with the Desperate Focus trait and the Combat Casting feat, Str and Int of 16 and sufficient Dex and Con (meaning Wis and Cha probably go to the single-digits) work, then there is an inherent flaw with the class.
As far as I am concerned, I plan to play an elven Magus with a longsword and balanced stats if or when I get the chance to play the class, regardless of how the final version looks, because I like the flavor. However, it would be nice if I did not have to wait until 7th or 8th level to actually play the class the way it is supposed to be played (or, if you do not like the phrase 'supposed to be played', then 'to actually use its signature ability, an ability whose very name at the moment actually means what the Magus is trained to do, effectively'). Still, at the lower levels, I would probably never ever use Spell Combat and rarely use Spellstrike the way they...
Very fair point. Like I said, I think combat casting should be 1st level. This wouldn't be anything anyone would dip for, since only casters benefit and no caster would dip since they would lose a caster level to get a feat they could just take. But even then it's a 17 to cast 1st level spells and the biggest bonus you have at 2nd with combat casting is going to be +10, then -2 for the penalty and you are looking at a less than 50% chance (if you have an 18 INT).
My personal proposed solution is to move spell combat down a bit, but give you the ability to switch out spells for melee damage at a rate of 2d6 per level of the spell. This would get less useful just as you get spell combat, but would give you something early on to get you doing rogue level damage in combat (less often per day, but you won't have to flank/sneak to do it).
The upshot of this for me is you get something at low level that doesn't become over-powered at high level and isn't so powerful it would become a dip class, but can still let you do some real damage at low levels in specific fights.
You could also make it so the spells don't fizzle when you try to cast them this way, they just don't cast. That way you aren't risking burning a spell when you cast in combat.
I haven't read all, since there's a ton of things said, but my opinion with the Magus as presented is simple. Said that I didn't have that many great expectations from it because I'm aware of how hard it is to balance a double-role class:
1) You have to rely on both a good Intelligence score (16 at least, in the end, to be able to cast your highest level spells) and good physical scores. More good than the Bard's, since you're supposed to normally go melee. And I suppose I don't need to teach anyone how this is hard to obtain even with a 25 points build + 4/8/12/16/20 levels increments. Of course there are magic items and other things to enhance stats, but other classes too have access to them, and monster are balanced with that already in mind.
2) At low levels you can do little more than help others flanking. Your spells are not good as a full spellcaster's and your melee is poor, both in offense (mid BAB, probably not so good Str, and most probably no combat feats to aid) and defense (not so many HPs, not so good Dex and Con, and only light armor). Maybe it would work a little more decently if Spell Combat wasn't restricted to melee, but I wouldn't give much hope to that.
3) At high levels you can still do little more than help others flanking, essentially (of course there's a much wider array of options to pick, depending on the situation, but you can picture the typical odds). Your spells are increasingly behind a full spellcaster's and your melee is still poor. While you may have a better defense since the option to wear medium and heavy armors, your offense suffers the same misfortunes of your spells: you're far behind a full fighter since your Str is (most probably) inferior to his, your BAB is (undeniably) inferior and very probably you have not a good set of feats to help you in hitting and damaging.
Of course I know that if you have both (combat and spellcasting) you can't be as good in either of the two as a class that focuses in one of them, but that is exactly the problem in making a class like this: it's ridiculously hard to make it balanced, you always end up having either a God or an almost worthless character. If you make it good at melee and add the spellcasting (or vice-versa) you'll have something too good. And if you make it not so good at both (as the Magus is now) it's not good at anything.
Can you see it fighting with a mighty beast, say a Dragon? While the Fighter and Barbarian tear its scales, while the Rogue strikes its weak spots, while the spellcasters hinder and damage it with spells, and so on... what is the role of the Magus, caught amid the fight, hardly able to hit and damage and perhaps nearly unable to do any good with his spells? Maybe in the end the Magus would become a support class in its little shadowy corner of uselessness, rather than a protagonist of the fight who storms with blade and spell as her flavour demanded.
In a view of balance I honestly think that classes like these would best never be created, unless some really, really enlightened idea is at their core.
As for now, the only thing I can think to help making the Magus more balanced would be increasing the selection, effects and duration of its Spellstrike abilities, but that would be a mere mending.
If you're going to argue that someone hasn't done that math, it's usually better to do the math right, would you agree?Facts:
9th level using Spell Combat with 18 Int/18 Str
Casting 1st level spells: 85% success
Casting 2nd level spells: 75% success
Casting 3rd level spells: 65% successAttacking a Hill Giant (CR 7):
First attack: 40% chance to hit
Second attack: 15% chance to hitVery effective, that.
Assuming you are casting a 1st level spell that is not offensive, your chance to pull off both successfully is what? 34%?
Except at no point did you say I did the math wrong, did you?. I was not including Combat Casting because it isn't part of the class.
I will give you I forgot Arcane Weapon - BAB + Str - Spell Combat = +8/3 to hit.We'll add Arcane Weapon so it is a +10/5.
That changes the percentages to 50%/25%.
|
|
If you're going to argue that someone hasn't done that math, it's usually better to do the math right, would you agree?
Except at no point did you say I did the math wrong, did you?. I was not including Combat Casting because it isn't part of the class.
I will give you I forgot Arcane Weapon - BAB + Str - Spell Combat = +8/3 to hit.
We'll add Arcane Weapon so it is a +10/5.
That changes the percentages to 50%/25%.
That is his point. If you actually make a Magus you will have at least 6 feats by 9th level (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and a bonus feat) and given the nature of the class one of those will likely be used on combat casting.
As I keep saying, actually roll one up and play test it.
Sure, one will be Combat Casting because it has to be. But that is beside the point for multiple reasons.
|
|
Sure, one will be Combat Casting because it has to be. But that is beside the point for multiple reasons.
No, that is the point. I gave you a quick and dirty realistic 9th level build for a magus, only using 2 of the 6 feats I would actually have, not looking at weapon optimization or any number of other features, and it is pretty damn powerful. Soloing that Hill Giant you put up is pretty much cake, in fact.
You can't not include things it would actually have at that level. It would be like not counting the fact that fighters get feats every other level when saying it's underpowered.
People have made some good points about low level issues, particularly with spell combat. But it is plenty powerful enough at higher levels when you look at all of the bonuses it gets vs other classes.
Sure, one will be Combat Casting because it has to be. But that is beside the point for multiple reasons.
I have to agree on you not adding it in, although you still haven't play tested it.
This shouldn't be a feat tax, you should be able to cast your spells without it, or you should get it as part of the class (or at least an ability similar to it). Concentrate is not that ability, not a 1/day.
Your original math should stick though, minus not using Arcane Bond weapon (although as having play tested now three characters its not always used for the +1 enhancement bonus every time).
I think people complaining that it is weak are missing the point. The point of the magus is to dish out damage while simultaneously having excellent magical defenses, that can be put up without wasting rounds at the start of combat.
Your point though isn't right, the class doesn't deal out damage while simultaneously having excellent magical defenses. This class struggles with dealing damage, he struggles with staying on par with most other classes in that department. This class has anything but excellent magical defenses, his has some decent buff spells, but that is it, the wizard can do much better than him, and so can other classes...
My point being, balance does matter, but not at the expense of under powering the class, as is the class is under powered, its not on par for defenses nor damage....As soon as he makes up the difference somewhat at level 8, by level 9 he is right back where he started because his class features aren't up to par either.....Yes in can cast in medium armor, but at the expense of being effective isn't really worth it.
I love the flavor of this class, I love where its started and where it is going, I think this is going to be great to play, but I know, as well as most, that this is no where near being finished class.
Sure, one will be Combat Casting because it has to be. But that is beside the point for multiple reasons.No, that is the point. I gave you a quick and dirty realistic 9th level build for a magus, only using 2 of the 6 feats I would actually have, not looking at weapon optimization or any number of other features, and it is pretty damn powerful. Soloing that Hill Giant you put up is pretty much cake, in fact.
You can't not include things it would actually have at that level. It would be like not counting the fact that fighters get feats every other level when saying it's underpowered.
People have made some good points about low level issues, particularly with spell combat. But it is plenty powerful enough at higher levels when you look at all of the bonuses it gets vs other classes.
Here is the issue though, what is the point at playing a class that isn't effective to mid level? I mean the average party take 3-4 months to get from 1-9, that is half a campaign sometimes, or 2/3, or all of it, you are playing something that doesn't come into its own until high levels, and even then it has trouble staying on par.
|
|
Here is the issue though, what is the point at playing a class that isn't effective to mid level? I mean the average party take 3-4 months to get from 1-9, that is half a campaign sometimes, or 2/3, or all of it, you are playing something that doesn't come into its own until high levels, and even then it has trouble staying on par.
I think we agree it needs tweaks not an overhaul. Most of the play tests I've read have been saying basically this.
I think you can make a very powerful character that can fill a lot of rolls at pretty much every level with the current build. I made my suggestions regarding lower level features which would help at low level without becoming over powered at high levels.
But Cartigan and ProfessorCirno aren't taking into account all of the features you do get with the build as it is, and so they aren't looking at how powerful it actually is in a game play.
It sounds like you've rolled up a few, and maybe even tried it out in combat, which is what I am saying they need to do before commenting about it being weak, while ignoring half of what it can do.
I will give you I forgot Arcane Weapon - BAB + Str - Spell Combat = +8/3 to hit.
We'll add Arcane Weapon so it is a +10/5.
That changes the percentages to 50%/25%.
Not even a +1 weapon? No feat bonuses? Please.
You can ignore some things like that when comparing classes, but when you're doing an absolute determination (PC attacking creature), you can't ignore the typical accouterments they will have.
Here is the issue though, what is the point at playing a class that isn't effective to mid level? I mean the average party take 3-4 months to get from 1-9, that is half a campaign sometimes, or 2/3, or all of it, you are playing something that doesn't come into its own until high levels, and even then it has trouble staying on par.
I think we agree it needs tweaks not an overhaul. Most of the play tests I've read have been saying basically this.
I think you can make a very powerful character that can fill a lot of rolls at pretty much every level with the current build. I made my suggestions regarding lower level features which would help at low level without becoming over powered at high levels.
But Cartigan and ProfessorCirno aren't taking into account all of the features you do get with the build as it is, and so they aren't looking at how powerful it actually is in a game play.
It sounds like you've rolled up a few, and maybe even tried it out in combat, which is what I am saying they need to do before commenting about it being weak, while ignoring half of what it can do.
Yep totally agree with you there. I have rolled up three characters now, Human level 1-3, Human Vamp level 6, a Human level 9.
Basically it trails behind the other classes in most ways until level 8-9, at that point its playable, but even then its tiered Magus Arcana aren't that good, pretty underpowered.
The Vamp was an NPC, who btw still had a hard time hitting the PCs with a +7, thats with Spell combat.
Here is the issue though, what is the point at playing a class that isn't effective to mid level? I mean the average party take 3-4 months to get from 1-9, that is half a campaign sometimes, or 2/3, or all of it, you are playing something that doesn't come into its own until high levels, and even then it has trouble staying on par.
I think we agree it needs tweaks not an overhaul. Most of the play tests I've read have been saying basically this.
I think you can make a very powerful character that can fill a lot of rolls at pretty much every level with the current build. I made my suggestions regarding lower level features which would help at low level without becoming over powered at high levels.
But Cartigan and ProfessorCirno aren't taking into account all of the features you do get with the build as it is, and so they aren't looking at how powerful it actually is in a game play.
It sounds like you've rolled up a few, and maybe even tried it out in combat, which is what I am saying they need to do before commenting about it being weak, while ignoring half of what it can do.
Yep totally agree with you there. I have rolled up three characters now, Human level 1-3, Human Vamp level 6, a Human level 9.
Basically it trails behind the other classes in most ways until level 8-9, at that point its playable, but even then its tiered Magus Arcana aren't that good, pretty underpowered.
The Vamp was an NPC, who btw still had a hard time hitting the PCs with a +7, thats with Spell combat.
The Vampire Template gives +6 Strength, right? Hmm, OK, starting racial bonus didn't go to Strength then, for a 22 Strength, and the Vamp didn't take Weapon Focus, then since it was an NPC it couldn't afford a +2 Strength item and it had a +1 (Shocking or Keen or something) weapon. Is that right?
You can't not include things it would actually have at that level.
I can and I did.
It would be like not counting the fact that fighters get feats every other level when saying it's underpowered.
Discounting Fighter feats and discounting character feats aren't the same thing. But we aren't discussing Fighters.
Also, at no point do you have to take Combat Casting. And pressed for other feats (god knows what), you might not. Therefore my assessment is still correct in that regard.
But Cartigan and ProfessorCirno aren't taking into account all of the features you do get with the build as it is, and so they aren't looking at how powerful it actually is in a game play.
I've been playtesting one at level 6 recently. Even using everything available to me, and some leniency from the DM, it still feels weak compared to my paladin, cleric and summoner party members. This weakness is attributed to pretty much every critique that's been presented across dozens of threads. Essentially, I'm saying that in my experience cartigan is correct. Combat Casting is a feat tax. It isn't a build choice if it's not optional. Without it, the class is worthless. With it, it's alright, but still feels lacking. Most likely because spellstrike is useless and the magus arcana feel underpowered. Now part of this is also because we're level 6, and 8 is about where it starts to get good. I'm not even going to bother making the comment about how making a top heavy class isn't a good idea; that's also in dozens of threads regarding the magus. I think that in the end we'll find that the class will be very well done, just like with the classes from the apg.
The Vampire Template gives +6 Strength, right? Hmm, OK, starting racial bonus didn't go to Strength then, for a 22 Strength, and the Vamp didn't take Weapon Focus, then since it was an NPC it couldn't afford a +2 Strength item and it had a +1 (Shocking or Keen or something) weapon. Is that right?
Something to that effect, I just converted one of the vamps from CoT #3.
|
|
You can't not include things it would actually have at that level.I can and I did.
It would be like not counting the fact that fighters get feats every other level when saying it's underpowered.Discounting Fighter feats and discounting character feats aren't the same thing. But we aren't discussing Fighters.
Also, at no point do you have to take Combat Casting. And pressed for other feats (god knows what), you might not. Therefore my assessment is still correct in that regard.
You clearly aren't interested in having a serious conversation about balance if you aren't going to actual look at all of the features available at each level, including feats.
We get it, you don't like the Magus. You want a full BAB caster, regardless of if it would be overpowered relative to other classes or current CR levels. You said you could make a more powerful melee cleric, and you were shown you couldn't. You created a battle which you though the Magus would lose vs a CR 7 creature, and we showed you why the Magus would dominate that battle.
You don't want to take the time to actually play test, you want to complain.
My suggestion is you find a DM who will let you homerule an uberclass.
If you would like to have a serious discussion, do an actual play test and post the results. If you want to have a serious debate, post your suggestions for changes, then roll up a play test with a character with those changes and post them on here.
It is called a play test for a reason.
You clearly aren't interested in having a serious conversation about balance if you aren't going to actual look at all of the features available at each level, including feats.We get it, you don't like the Magus. You want a full BAB caster, regardless of if it would be overpowered relative to other classes or current CR levels.
Speaking of not being interested in a serious discussion. If you want to play "argumentum ad absurdum," that's an easy game, Mr The-Magus-is-the-most-awesome-balanced-class-ever.
You said you could make a more powerful melee cleric, and you were shown you couldn't.
I'm sorry, you saying random things does not equate to anyone being "shown" anything.
You created a battle which you though the Magus would lose vs a CR 7 creature, and we showed you why the Magus would dominate that battle.
No, I created a battle with defined limits and actual numbers.
You don't want to take the time to actually play test, you want to complain.
So you just interjected all of a sudden a Magus into your game? Or just made up a game on the fly to play the Magus? Good for you, I'm glad you have the ability to do that on the fly. I don't.
I don't have to play test to make obvious assertions.
Such as:
Spell Combat attempts to pigeonhole the Magus into using one handed weapons only.
Spell Combat is an attempt to bring the Magus' action economy in a full attack up to that of a full BAB class.
Arcane Weapon is a class ability that is either in need of errata for being mistyped or completely different from the (Anti)Paladin's ability in an attempt to bring it up to par with full BAB classes.
Magus Arcana are generally underwhelming especially given that your max spell level caps out at 6.
Spell Strike is gimped by needing two actions perform it where there is no reason one would be overpowered.
|
You can't not include things it would actually have at that level.I can and I did.
It would be like not counting the fact that fighters get feats every other level when saying it's underpowered.Discounting Fighter feats and discounting character feats aren't the same thing. But we aren't discussing Fighters.
Also, at no point do you have to take Combat Casting. And pressed for other feats (god knows what), you might not. Therefore my assessment is still correct in that regard.
You wanna make an EK, you need combat basting. You want a laughing touch sorcerer build, you need combat casting. So then why doesn't the fey bloodline give combat casting?!? Or the EK? Hell clerics need combat casting much more then the magus does (or reach spell). What about the paladin? The magus does not NEED combat casting...even with combat casting, spell combat is rather worthless at level 2. What it needs is a spell strike that is actually worth a damn and maybe another ability that is worth a damn til level 8. Also those arcanas need to stop running off swifts.
|
|
You said you could make a more powerful melee cleric, and you were shown you couldn't.I'm sorry, you saying random things does not equate to anyone being "shown" anything.
You make your battle cleric, I'll make my Magus, we'll let the board discuss which one is more effective in straight melee combat.
No, I created a battle with defined limits and actual numbers.
And two people showed you several ways that the magus would win the battle you created easily, which proved your point wrong.
So you just interjected all of a sudden a Magus into your game? Or just made up a game on the fly to play the Magus? Good for you, I'm glad you have the ability to do that on the fly. I don't.
You've been posting on several boards on here for two days. So I'll assume the issue a isn't lack of free time. I suggest you take some of that time to roll up a Magus. Then open the bestiary and try to fight something in it and see how it works out. If you have access to the Gamemastery guide, you can run a whole party. Then you can post the results.
The description of the magus I posted above took me 5 minutes to figure out, in between taking calls at work.
You can have the last word with your next post if you like. I stand by saying you don't actually want to test the class and have a serious discussion about it. You want to complain. Unless of course you actually want to post a play test to discuss, which would actually be helpful in improving the class.
I like the design of the class so far. Maybe just a little tweaking needed here and there.
I would drop the -2 to the Casting Defensively. Combat Casting is a no brainer for most spellcasters, but shouldn't be a necessity.
I also think the melee penalty is just a wee bit too high. I think -2 would be better than -4.
My feeling is that the medium BAB is fine, but for what is apparently an iconic ability of the class, the above penalties are just a wee bit too high. I would think they should be able, on average, to pull those attacks and spells off successfully at least 50% of the time without having to "optimize" their build.
I realize that the ability in question is allowing a melee attack and a spell at the same time, so it could be argued that its a pretty potent ability, but unlike a two-weapon fighter, they're limited to how often they can even attempt it, due to using up spell slots.
Overall I like the design, and when adding in the other abilities they get (the Aracana, Bonded Weapon, etc.), they're a pretty nice class. Just think they need a slight tweak there.
You wanna make an EK, you need combat basting. You want a laughing touch sorcerer build, you need combat casting.
No, you don't. You want Combat Casting.
So then why doesn't the fey bloodline give combat casting?!? Or the EK?
I didn't realize either class had a class feature that forces you to cast defensively.
You make your battle cleric, I'll make my Magus, we'll let the board discuss which one is more effective in straight melee combat.
Pick a level, starting point spread, and wealth.
And two people showed you several ways that the magus would win the battle you created easily, which proved your point wrong.
Except my point was to do nothing but show numbers. Which I did. Accurately. No one has managed to disprove I used the numbers incorrectly so I suppose I didn't.
You've been posting on several boards on here for two days. So I'll assume the issue a isn't lack of free time. I suggest you take some of that time to roll up a Magus. Then open the bestiary and try to fight something in it and see how it works out. If you have access to the Gamemastery guide, you can run a whole party. Then you can post the results.
That's ridiculous. You can just crunch numbers as well as do that because there will be none of these "dynamics!" or "unidentifiable interactions!" people are harping on.
You wanna make an EK, you need combat basting. You want a laughing touch sorcerer build, you need combat casting. So then why doesn't the fey bloodline give combat casting?!? Or the EK? Hell clerics need combat casting much more then the magus does (or reach spell). What about the paladin? The magus does not NEED combat casting...even with combat casting, spell combat is rather worthless at level 2. What it needs is a spell strike that is actually worth a damn and maybe another ability that is worth a damn til level 8. Also those arcanas need to stop running off swifts.You can't not include things it would actually have at that level.I can and I did.
It would be like not counting the fact that fighters get feats every other level when saying it's underpowered.Discounting Fighter feats and discounting character feats aren't the same thing. But we aren't discussing Fighters.
Also, at no point do you have to take Combat Casting. And pressed for other feats (god knows what), you might not. Therefore my assessment is still correct in that regard.
I've built many EK. Not one took combat casting. They didn't need it. They stepped out of combat to cast, had no issues casting defensively by the level they would be in melee, or had enough defenses up that I didn't care about the AoO. The EK does not have a class feature whose success is dependant on combat casting. Its a nice to have, but loses relevance by the time you really need it. The magus on the other hand has this class ability that is pretty much worthless without it. It requires you to cast defensively, so you can't just cast mirror image and rely on the 1/8th chance they hit you. Even if your not in a position to provoke, such as having cover/concealment or a flat-footted opponent, you still need to cast defensively. And without combat casting, through the majority of your levels you have an unacceptable level of failure. That is why it is a feat tax for the magus but not the EK, for which it is only a nice to have.
|
|
You make your battle cleric, I'll make my Magus, we'll let the board discuss which one is more effective in straight melee combat.Pick a level, starting point spread, and wealth.
Now this will be a practical play test. Any level (or levels if you want to do a few) you want, you can pick the point spread, standard PC wealth from the book for the level(s)
I may have to post a reply tonight, as I am at work, but this will actually be useful for the discussion.
|
|
I've built many EK. Not one took combat casting. They didn't need it. They stepped out of combat to cast, had no issues casting defensively by the level they would be in melee, or had enough defenses up that I didn't care about the AoO. The EK does not have a class feature whose success is dependant on combat casting. Its a nice to have, but loses relevance by the time you really need it. The magus on the other hand has this class ability that is pretty much worthless without it. It requires you to cast defensively, so you can't just cast mirror image and rely on the 1/8th chance they hit you. Even if your not in a position to provoke, such as having cover/concealment or a flat-footted opponent, you still need to cast defensively. And without combat casting, through the majority of your levels you have an unacceptable level of failure. That is why it is a...You wanna make an EK, you need combat basting. You want a laughing touch sorcerer build, you need combat casting. So then why doesn't the fey bloodline give combat casting?!? Or the EK? Hell clerics need combat casting much more then the magus does (or reach spell). What about the paladin? The magus does not NEED combat casting...even with combat casting, spell combat is rather worthless at level 2. What it needs is a spell strike that is actually worth a damn and maybe another ability that is worth a damn til level 8. Also those arcanas need to stop running off swifts.You can't not include things it would actually have at that level.I can and I did.
It would be like not counting the fact that fighters get feats every other level when saying it's underpowered.Discounting Fighter feats and discounting character feats aren't the same thing. But we aren't discussing Fighters.
Also, at no point do you have to take Combat Casting. And pressed for other feats (god knows what), you might not. Therefore my assessment is still correct in that regard.
Fine then, explain to me why the cleric and paladin don't need it. It's not like you can easily avoid AoO when attemping to heal downed party members for example.
And the EK should REALLY be using vamp touch to stay up unless they wanna be draining the cleric like there is no tommarow as none of their abilities gives AC and your stuck with light armor in a class that has even MORE money issues then the magus. The EK has more feat taxes, more money issues, more MAD issues, more pretty much all the minor stuff people seem to be complaining about then the magus. I have played the EK JUST fine...feat taxed and all. The problem with the magus when compared to the EK is that they suck more at low levels and aren't as great at really high levels. But for the sweet spot area that most campaigns hang in, they are awesome. I rather not have the magus get better at high levels, but they most certainly should be boosted at low levels...and most of that actually involves getting rid of spell combat at level 2.
Now this will be a practical play test. Any level (or levels if you want to do a few) you want, you can pick the point spread, standard PC wealth from the book for the level(s)
I neither know nor care.
Fine then, explain to me why the cleric and paladin don't need it.
Double facepalm. For when one facepalm isn't enough.
That is a VERY simple explanation - NEITHER CLASS IS FORCED TO CAST DEFENSIVELY.
|
|
Fine then, explain to me why the cleric and paladin don't need it.Double facepalm. For when one facepalm isn't enough.
That is a VERY simple explanation - NEITHER CLASS IS FORCED TO CAST DEFENSIVELY.
So the cleric taking an gaint club to the face that brought down the tank is a perfectly FINE option for your clerics then *facepalm*?!? Oh and losing the spell because of the damage no less. There is more then one forced to do action. You don't HAVE to spell combat your higest level spell either...except at low levels and I have already said that spell combat is a failure at those level...combat casting or not.
|
|
I neither know nor care.Now this will be a practical play test. Any level (or levels if you want to do a few) you want, you can pick the point spread, standard PC wealth from the book for the level(s)
Know nor care about what.
Pick a level. Open your book and look at what the PC wealth is for that level. Then pick your point spread from that level. It isn't complicated, and I'm giving you every advantage to cherry pick levels most favorable to you.
Or are you saying now that you've looked at it, you've decided not to participate and only want to go on complaining without testing.
So the cleric taking an gaint club to the face that brought down the tank is a perfectly FINE option for your clerics then *facepalm*?!? Oh and losing the spell because of the damage no less. There is more then one forced to do action. You don't HAVE to spell combat your higest level spell either...except at low levels and I have already said that spell combat is a failure at those level...combat casting or not.
Are you raving like a lunatic or making an actual counterargument? I can't tell.
I neither know nor care.Now this will be a practical play test. Any level (or levels if you want to do a few) you want, you can pick the point spread, standard PC wealth from the book for the level(s)
Know nor care about what.
Pick a level. Open your book and look at what the PC wealth is for that level. Then pick your point spread from that level. It isn't complicated, and I'm giving you every advantage to cherry pick levels most favorable to you.
Or are you saying now that you've looked at it, you've decided not to participate and only want to go on complaining without testing.
Since you can't be assed to pick numbers out of the air when prompted, I don't care enough to do it for you.
|
|
Since you can't be assed to pick numbers out of the air when prompted, I don't care enough to do it for you.I neither know nor care.Now this will be a practical play test. Any level (or levels if you want to do a few) you want, you can pick the point spread, standard PC wealth from the book for the level(s)
Know nor care about what.
Pick a level. Open your book and look at what the PC wealth is for that level. Then pick your point spread from that level. It isn't complicated, and I'm giving you every advantage to cherry pick levels most favorable to you.
Or are you saying now that you've looked at it, you've decided not to participate and only want to go on complaining without testing.
Fine I pikc for you guys...do level 7
|
|
Are you raving like a lunatic or making an actual counterargument? I can't tell.
So the cleric taking an gaint club to the face that brought down the tank is a perfectly FINE option for your clerics then *facepalm*?!? Oh and losing the spell because of the damage no less. There is more then one forced to do action. You don't HAVE to spell combat your higest level spell either...except at low levels and I have already said that spell combat is a failure at those level...combat casting or not.
A bit of colum A and bit of colum B. Take what you want. But honestly I don't see the point of the whole oh you must hav combat casting. At that point, might as well say thaty ou do spell combat at a +2 to concentration checks instead.
So the cleric taking an gaint club to the face that brought down the tank is a perfectly FINE option for your clerics then *facepalm*?!? Oh and losing the spell because of the damage no less. There is more then one forced to do action. You don't HAVE to spell combat your higest level spell either...except at low levels and I have already said that spell combat is a failure at those level...combat casting or not.Fine then, explain to me why the cleric and paladin don't need it.Double facepalm. For when one facepalm isn't enough.
That is a VERY simple explanation - NEITHER CLASS IS FORCED TO CAST DEFENSIVELY.
1. Cleric can use channel energy to bring the tank up, provoking no attack of opportunity and requiring no check. 2. He does not need to be in the same square as the tank that just went down, and therefore can be out of reach of the opponent. Unless the opponent is in the square of the tank or has reach, the cleric can cast next to the character without needing a check. 3. The cleric can cast out or range of the monster, move in next to the tank, and then use his free touch to heal the tank. The touch does not need to be taken during casting, but can be used at any time durring the turn. It is trivial to not provoke with healing, but a concentration check is mandatory for the magus. There is a huge difference.
At that point, might as well say thaty ou do spell combat at a +2 to concentration checks instead.
Which is my exact argument for the whole ability being reworked instead of the class being given Combat Casting for free. Giving it Combat Casting just masks the problem with Spell Combat that still exists.
|
|
Fine I pikc for you guys...do level 7Since you can't be assed to pick numbers out of the air when prompted, I don't care enough to do it for you.I neither know nor care.Now this will be a practical play test. Any level (or levels if you want to do a few) you want, you can pick the point spread, standard PC wealth from the book for the level(s)
Know nor care about what.
Pick a level. Open your book and look at what the PC wealth is for that level. Then pick your point spread from that level. It isn't complicated, and I'm giving you every advantage to cherry pick levels most favorable to you.
Or are you saying now that you've looked at it, you've decided not to participate and only want to go on complaining without testing.
I'll post it tonight. He'll chicken out when he actually opens a rulebook and reads it...
|
Fine then, explain to me why the cleric and paladin don't need it.Double facepalm. For when one facepalm isn't enough.
That is a VERY simple explanation - NEITHER CLASS IS FORCED TO CAST DEFENSIVELY.
Umm except as usual if you actually play the game they are forced to cast defensively all the time. Paladins are in melee they are supposed to melee quite often they will be completely surrounded by monsters and unable to take a 5 foot step nor would they want to. Clerics on the other hand = high priority target for killing once they bypass the melee they will go straight for the Cleric.
|
|
Are you raving like a lunatic or making an actual counterargument? I can't tell.
So the cleric taking an gaint club to the face that brought down the tank is a perfectly FINE option for your clerics then *facepalm*?!? Oh and losing the spell because of the damage no less. There is more then one forced to do action. You don't HAVE to spell combat your higest level spell either...except at low levels and I have already said that spell combat is a failure at those level...combat casting or not.
Don't bother Cold Napalm, he doesn't want to actually look at what you wrote, he just wants to be right.
I'll post it tonight. He'll chicken out when he actually opens a rulebook and reads it...Fine I pikc for you guys...do level 7Since you can't be assed to pick numbers out of the air when prompted, I don't care enough to do it for you.I neither know nor care.Now this will be a practical play test. Any level (or levels if you want to do a few) you want, you can pick the point spread, standard PC wealth from the book for the level(s)
Know nor care about what.
Pick a level. Open your book and look at what the PC wealth is for that level. Then pick your point spread from that level. It isn't complicated, and I'm giving you every advantage to cherry pick levels most favorable to you.
Or are you saying now that you've looked at it, you've decided not to participate and only want to go on complaining without testing.
You can also use my sample magus from my thread with stat blocks for her from level 1 to 20. Here she is at 7
Str 21
Dex 13
Con 14
Int 16
Wis 7
Cha 7
Hit Points: 66
AC 21 (13 touch, 19 flat-footed)
Fort: +9
Ref: +7
Will: +5
Feats: Combat Casting, Toughness, Weapon Focus (Rapier), Dodge, Arcane Strike, Outflank
Traits: Desperate Focus, Heirloom Weapon
Class Abilities: Spellstrike, Spell Combat, Magus Arcana (Familiar--Alfador), Arcane Weapon, Bonus Feat, Magus Arcana (Empowered Magic), Medium Armour
Skills: Climb +8, Craft[Jewelry] +7, Fly +8, Know[Arcana] +13, Know [Dungeoneering] +11, Know [Planes] +13, Perception +0, Ride + 4, Sense Motive +0, Spellcraft +13, Swim +7, Use Magic Device +8
Concentration: +10 (+16 casting defensively, +14 for Spell Combat)
Spells:
1-Colour Spray, Enlarge Person, Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Grease, Mount, Obscuring Mist, Shield, Shocking Grasp, True Strike, Unseen Servant
2-Cat's Grace, Glitterdust, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Scorching Ray, Web
3-Haste, Fly
Spells per Day: 0-5, 1-5, 2-4, 3-2
Attacks:
Heirloom Rapier +13 to hit (+17 flanking w/partner), 1d6+8+1d6 damage
Spell Combat with Heirloom Rapier +9 to hit (+13 flanking w/partner), 1d6+8+1d6 damage
MW MTY Comp Longbow +7 to hit, 1d8+6 damage
Possessions: +1 Shock (or other more useful element for the day) Rapier, +1 Mithral Breastplate, +1 Ring of Protection, +2 Cloak of Resistance, +1 Amulet of Natural Armour, MW MTY Comp Longbow, Belt of Giant Strength +2, random gear, paid to scribe an extra level 1 spell, extra gold to save up
Of course she has a whopping +5 more to hit with Spell Combat at level 8, so in case it's relevant, here's level 8:
Str 22
Dex 13
Con 14
Int 16
Wis 7
Cha 7
Hit Points: 75
AC 21 (13 touch, 19 flat-footed)
Fort: +10
Ref: +7
Will: +6
Feats: Combat Casting, Toughness, Weapon Focus (Rapier), Dodge, Arcane Strike, Outflank
Traits: Desperate Focus, Heirloom Weapon
Class Abilities: Spellstrike, Spell Combat, Magus Arcana (Familiar--Alfador), Arcane Weapon, Bonus Feat, Magus Arcana (Empowered Magic), Medium Armour, Improved Spell Combat
Skills: Climb +9, Craft[Jewelry] +7, Fly +10, Know[Arcana] +14, Know [Dungeoneering] +11, Know [Planes] +14, Perception +0, Ride + 4, Sense Motive +0, Spellcraft +14, Swim +8, Use Magic Device +9
Concentration: +11 (+17 casting defensively or Spell Combat)
Spells:
1-Colour Spray, Enlarge Person, Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Grease, Mount, Obscuring Mist, Shield, Shocking Grasp, True Strike, Unseen Servant
2-Cat's Grace, Glitterdust, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Scorching Ray, Web
3-Displacement, Haste, Fireball, Fly
Spells per Day: 0-5, 1-5, 2-5, 3-3
Attacks:
Heirloom Rapier +16/+11 to hit (+20/+15 flanking w/partner), 1d6+10+1d6 damage 15-20/x2
Spell Combat with Heirloom Rapier +14/+9 to hit (+18/+13 flanking w/partner), 1d6+10+1d6 damage 15-20/x2
MW MTY Comp Longbow +8 to hit, 1d8+6 damage 20/x3
Possessions: +2 Keen Shock (or other more useful element for the day) Rapier, +2 Mithral Breastplate, +1 Ring of Protection, +2 Cloak of Resistance, +1 Amulet of Natural Armour, MW MTY Comp Longbow, Belt of Giant Strength +2, random gear, paid to scribe an extra level 1 spell, extra gold to save up
This is using 20 Point Buy, which is the average of rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest and the Point Buy of Pathfinder Society. If using the more restrictive 15 Point Buy, Schala would need to start with 2 lower Int and thus she would buy a Headband of Vast Intellect instead of some of her other items (to ensure she gets a 3rd-level bonus spell), so she'd lose an AC or 2.
Umm except as usual if you actually play the game they are forced to cast defensively all the time. Paladins are in melee they are supposed to melee quite often they will be completely surrounded by monsters and unable to take a 5 foot step nor would they want to. Clerics on the other hand = high priority target for killing once they bypass the melee they will go straight for the Cleric.Fine then, explain to me why the cleric and paladin don't need it.Double facepalm. For when one facepalm isn't enough.
That is a VERY simple explanation - NEITHER CLASS IS FORCED TO CAST DEFENSIVELY.
Will some one PLEASE tell me which Cleric, Wizard, Paladin, Ranger, Inquisitor, Druid, Bard, or any other class' ability literally forces the player to cast defensively to make use of it?