You sure do talk alot for someone that has said nothing. No counter argument, no real point. Just attempts at clever veiled insults.
If you think someone is wrong and an idiot balls up and say it. Right should not hide behind "I might get banned." State a case.
"Your wrong", is not the counter point you think it is. Neither is "I'm Right and your obtuse." Throw an insult or don't. Argue or don't. Do you half live too?
In response to you next post,
OK.
|
Please show me where in spellcasting it says "To use this ability, you must cast defensively."
And spell casting for a caster isn't....
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering---final/combat---final#TOC-Cast-a-Spe ll
You don't have to do anything. You can take the attack of opportunity if you want, then try to cast through the damage.
Casting is generally a standard action, so doing a standard action and getting a full attack is a pretty big advantage.
Where is your Battle Cleric? Or your Battle druid, by the way? Or are you waiting until I'm done so you can custom build against what I post?
|
That's his point. To use Spellstrike you MUST cast defensively. You can't just take the AoO. This is different from all other class abilities.
Disclaimer: i am unable to read the playtest doc to verify the accuracy of his argument.
No your right. And I get his point. But MY point which he seems to wanna ignore is that if you can not cast a spell because your in a situation where you have to cast defensively and you have a high chance of failure, then it is the same as not using spell combat for the same reason. He is talking about mechanical issue only with no context.
You don't have to do anything. You can take the attack of opportunity if you want, then try to cast through the damage.
Thank you for proving yourselves wrong. To spellcast you do not have to cast defensively. To use Spell Combat, you are literally forced to cast defensively.
If you think someone is wrong and an idiot balls up and say it. Right should not hide behind "I might get banned." State a case.
As you wish: Mr. Fishy, I think you are wrong, and an idiot.
|
|
Thank you for proving yourselves wrong. To spellcast you do not have to cast defensively. To use Spell Combat, you are literally forced to cast defensively.
You don't have to do anything. You can take the attack of opportunity if you want, then try to cast through the damage.
A choice between just potentially losing a spell and getting attacked and still potentially losing the spell is no real choice at all.
A choice between just potentially losing a spell and getting attacked and still potentially losing the spell is no real choice at all.Thank you for proving yourselves wrong. To spellcast you do not have to cast defensively. To use Spell Combat, you are literally forced to cast defensively.
You don't have to do anything. You can take the attack of opportunity if you want, then try to cast through the damage.
Way to miss the point.
|
|
Way to miss the point.A choice between just potentially losing a spell and getting attacked and still potentially losing the spell is no real choice at all.Thank you for proving yourselves wrong. To spellcast you do not have to cast defensively. To use Spell Combat, you are literally forced to cast defensively.
You don't have to do anything. You can take the attack of opportunity if you want, then try to cast through the damage.
Course you doing exactly the same....
If you think someone is wrong and an idiot balls up and say it. Right should not hide behind "I might get banned." State a case.As you wish: Mr. Fishy, I think you are wrong, and an idiot.
So was that your think for the day?
|
|
A choice between just potentially losing a spell and getting attacked and still potentially losing the spell is no real choice at all.Thank you for proving yourselves wrong. To spellcast you do not have to cast defensively. To use Spell Combat, you are literally forced to cast defensively.
You don't have to do anything. You can take the attack of opportunity if you want, then try to cast through the damage.
Unless I know the mooks I am in melée with need a high roll to hit my AC.
Course you doing exactly the same....Way to miss the point.A choice between just potentially losing a spell and getting attacked and still potentially losing the spell is no real choice at all.Thank you for proving yourselves wrong. To spellcast you do not have to cast defensively. To use Spell Combat, you are literally forced to cast defensively.
You don't have to do anything. You can take the attack of opportunity if you want, then try to cast through the damage.
Your gibbering about spell casting possibly resulting in casting defensively at some point is WHOLLY irrelevant to the point that Spell Combat literally forces you to cast defensively to use the ability.
|
|
Unless I know the mooks I am in melée with need a high roll to hit my AC.A choice between just potentially losing a spell and getting attacked and still potentially losing the spell is no real choice at all.Thank you for proving yourselves wrong. To spellcast you do not have to cast defensively. To use Spell Combat, you are literally forced to cast defensively.
You don't have to do anything. You can take the attack of opportunity if you want, then try to cast through the damage.
If they're no threat to begin with, then they were no threat to begin with. My Tautology for the day. :D
|
|
Your gibbering about spell casting possibly resulting in casting defensively at some point is WHOLLY irrelevant to the point that Spell Combat literally forces you to cast defensively to use the ability.Course you doing exactly the same....Way to miss the point.A choice between just potentially losing a spell and getting attacked and still potentially losing the spell is no real choice at all.Thank you for proving yourselves wrong. To spellcast you do not have to cast defensively. To use Spell Combat, you are literally forced to cast defensively.
You don't have to do anything. You can take the attack of opportunity if you want, then try to cast through the damage.
And you gibbering on about mechanically needing to roll a concentration check is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the paladin needs to make concentration checks in a REAL game as well. You sir being just as obtuse as us. Your just not willing to admit it. I see your point...I just don't care.
And you gibbering on about mechanically needing to roll a concentration check is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the paladin needs to make concentration checks in a REAL game as well.
No. He. Does. Not.
Not a SINGLE Paladin ability requires you to cast defensively to use it.
So was that your think for the day?If you think someone is wrong and an idiot balls up and say it. Right should not hide behind "I might get banned." State a case.As you wish: Mr. Fishy, I think you are wrong, and an idiot.
We'll see.
|
|
And you gibbering on about mechanically needing to roll a concentration check is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the paladin needs to make concentration checks in a REAL game as well.No. He. Does. Not.
Not a SINGLE Paladin ability requires you to cast defensively to use it.
Yes. He. Does.
Unless you don't wanna call spells a class ability.
And you gibbering on about mechanically needing to roll a concentration check is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the paladin needs to make concentration checks in a REAL game as well.No. He. Does. Not.
Not a SINGLE Paladin ability requires you to cast defensively to use it.Yes. He. Does.
Unless you don't wanna call spells a class ability.
I was just looking at the Paladin spellcasting part of the SRD and I didn't see anything that said "When casting spells, you must cast them defensively."
|
|
And you gibbering on about mechanically needing to roll a concentration check is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the paladin needs to make concentration checks in a REAL game as well. You sir being just as obtuse as us. Your just not willing to admit it. I see your point...I just don't care.True, but the defining class feature of the paladin has nothing to do with spellcasting. They have the "smite something evil for a pile of extra damage, while getting bonuses to AC and saves" and the less flamboyant but equally impressive "heal self for several d6 as a swift action", neither of which have additional levels of failure built right in.
From what I have read on the other boards, the Magus can be really impressive once he hits mid-levels, but suffers from the ability to burn through his abilities insanely fast.
Now here is what I think is needed to help the Magus. These are only my opinions, but here they are.
One: Reduce the penalty at low levels for using spell combat. Giving someone a class feature that they have to wait several levels to use effectively is poor design. When you get it, you should be able to use it effectively right away. Or don't give the ability until it becomes effective.
Two: If a specific feat is a requirement to effectiveness, hand it out as a class feature. Monks don't need to buy improved unarmed combat, alchemists don't need to buy the brew potion feat, and neither cavaliers nor inquisitors need to buy the teamwork feats. So there is a precedent for it.
Three: Make the magus arcana powers their own activation cost. The magus already has limited spells, having to burn them to activate other abilities just makes the players only want to do one or two encounters per day before resting. The bard isn't forced to burn spells to use their music, and the inquisitor isn't forced to burn spells in order to fuel judgements. There should be zero magus arcana powers that require spending another spell to activate. The...
I could agree with all of these, but frankly I think the Spell Combat ability should go. Spell Strike makes a better defining feature, IMO, if you could combine it with swift- or move-action casting time touch spells or abilities that could be combined with spell strike effectively do the same thing before level 8, when Spell Combat becomes more useable. I think some freebie touch powers would make the class both more effective in melee combat and alleviate some of the 15-minute work day it seems to suffer from.
|
|
could agree with all of these, but frankly I think the Spell Combat ability should go. Spell Strike makes a better defining feature, IMO, if you could combine it with swift- or move-action casting time touch spells or abilities that could be combined with spell strike effectively do the same thing before level 8, when Spell Combat becomes more useable. I think some freebie touch powers would make the class both more effective in melee combat and alleviate some of the 15-minute work day it seems to suffer from.Looking at things, they could (and probably should) delay the level at which spell combat is gained, but make spell strike able to be used in one round rather than 2. An easy improvement would be at later levels to allow spell strike to be used with a full attack, but the spell gets discharged as normal. And again, none of this 1 round to cast and a second to use it stuff.
Agreed, so far nobody who I've had look at the ability has cared for it as written. I think the burden could be alleviated through casting time on some new spells, however, as maybe simpler than a rewrite.
Edit: As an added benefit, if you got rid of spell combat it would make it easier to use a two handed weapon which should alleviate some of the concerns from others that a Magus cannot keep up with a fighter.
Director of Games
|
Cartigan, Fishy, Cold Napalm, and everyone else involved.
Knock it off ok. Arguing semantics is a waste of everyone's time, including mine. The one thing I think we can all agree on is that I need more time to get this class right so please stop wasting mine.
This is your only warning. If your post consists a few sentences that boil down to "no its not, you smell", then you should not bother posting. If I get back here later to find more pointless arguments about mechanics that are now scheduled to change, I am going to start handing out some "time outs".
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I was just looking at the Paladin spellcasting part of the SRD and I didn't see anything that said "When casting spells, you must cast them defensively."
The Magus must only cast defensively when using Spell Combat.
Anyone who wants to cast a spell while engaged in melee combat, such as a paladin, ranger, cleric, druid, or magus, has two ways of doing it:
1 - Cast defensively: Con check of 15 + 2x spell level
2 - Cast normally, provoking an AoO: Con check of 10 + damage + spell level
Choice 2 is a sub-optimal choice since:
a) You are giving an opponent the opportunity to do damage
b) You are potentially (and routinely) giving yourself a higher DC for your concentration check to cast the spell
So, if given the choice, I personally would always cast defensively.
Now the reason Spell Combat needs to have a penalty is because, unlike EVERY OTHER CHARACTER, the Magus has the opportunity to decide not to make the choice between a spell and attacking while in melee. They can do both. No one else can. And it is a gamble, as it should be, because the magus is breaking the rules every time they use Spell Combat. The very fact that the penalties disappear makes me a little worried the magus, when min/max'ed, may be a little too powerful at higher levels.
How's this work then
Half-Orc Cleric of Gorum 7
CN
Favored Class: Cleric
HP: 41 (average)
Domains: Strength, War
Languages: Common, Orc
Abilities
Str: 21 (16 + 2 racial + 1 lvl + 2 Belt of Giant's Strength)
Dex: 10
Con: 12
Int: 7
Wis: 16
Cha: 12
Saves:
Fort: +8 (6 +2 Cloak)
Ref: +4 (2 + 2 Cloak)
Will: +9 (7 + 2 Cloak)
Class abilities
Channel energy: 4d6; 4/day
Battle Rage: +3 to melee damage rolls; 6/day
Strength Surge: +3 to melee attacks, Strength CM, Str based skill checks, Strength checks; 6/day
Skills (17 points, guessing minimum 1 skill point per level):
Intimidate: 10 (7+2+1)
Knowledge (religion): 5 (3-1+3)
Sense Motive: 9 (3+3+3)
Perception: 7 (4+3)
Gold total: 23,500; single item total: 11,750
Items:
+2 Belt of Giant's Strength (4000gp)
+2 Full Plate (5500gp)
+1 Greataxe (2025gp)
+1 Ring of Protection (2000gp)
+2 Cloak of Resistance (4000gp)
~6000gp for other stuff
Feats (4):
Armor Proficiency (Heavy), Channel Smite, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greataxe)
Atk:
+1 Greataxe, +12 to-hit, 1d12+8 dmg
--Power attack: +10 to-hit, 1d12+14 dmg
AC:
Total: 22 (+11 +2 Full Plate, +1 RoP)
Touch: 11 (+1 RoP)
FF: 22
Spells/day:
4 (0), 5 +1 (1), 4 + 1 (2), 3 + 1(3), 1 + 1(4)
Prepared:
--0--
--1--
--1 Domain--
--2--
--2 Domain--
--3--
--3 Domain--
--4--
--4 Domain--
There I added some spells.
How's this work then
** spoiler omitted **
Are you just using a regular greataxe then, not a masterwork or magical one? :-\
That's about all I'd change about the build besides documenting prepared spells.
It's a +1
|
|
Thank you for proving yourselves wrong. To spellcast you do not have to cast defensively. To use Spell Combat, you are literally forced to cast defensively.
You don't have to do anything. You can take the attack of opportunity if you want, then try to cast through the damage.
A choice between just potentially losing a spell and getting attacked and still potentially losing the spell is no real choice at all. [/QUOTE
And being able to cast and attack without risk is overpowered.
|
|
It's a +1How's this work then
** spoiler omitted **
Are you just using a regular greataxe then, not a masterwork or magical one? :-\
That's about all I'd change about the build besides documenting prepared spells.
Did you account for the weapon focus then? I'm calcing your attack with the greataxe as +12 if the weapon is +1. Five for BAB, five for strength, one for focus, one for +1. That should be +12.
Did you account for the weapon focus then? I'm calcing your attack with the greataxe as +12 if the weapon is +1. Five for BAB, five for strength, one for focus, one for +1. That should be +12.It's a +1How's this work then
** spoiler omitted **
Are you just using a regular greataxe then, not a masterwork or magical one? :-\
That's about all I'd change about the build besides documenting prepared spells.
I think I confused them in the process of addition and forgot to place both of them in there while thinking I did.
And I added spells.
I'm terrible with picking spells.
I think the most unfortunate thing about the class is that even the Gish base class is better off going into Eldrich Knight once he qualifies. So what's the point?
|
|
Okay, I just got home, so now I have a chance to respond some more to help complete the above cleric build.
@Cartigan
I went through and finished my check of the character. I had two more things pop up on the build. First, I'm not sure how you got to 17 skill points. AFAICT, you should have 14 skill points if you include your favored class bonuses.
Alternatively, I think you're an HP short. You should have 7d8+7 hp that amounts to 42 hp on average. 8+(4.5 x 6)+7 = 42 by my calculations for an average HP.
I think those should finish out your build.
This holds true at 2nd level, only now (with a high risk of failure) you can try to attack AND cast a spell in the same round.
A class ability with a hihg risk of failure isn't really a class ability.
Okay, I just got home, so now I have a chance to respond some more to help complete the above cleric build.
@Cartigan
I went through and finished my check of the character. I had two more things pop up on the build. First, I'm not sure how you got to 17 skill points. AFAICT, you should have 14 skill points if you include your favored class bonuses.Alternatively, I think you're an HP short. You should have 7d8+7 hp that amounts to 42 hp on average. 8+(4.5 x 6)+7 = 42 by my calculations for an average HP.
I think those should finish out your build.
I also admit to not being able to do math.
On my HP, I think I only added 6 when calculating the Con bonus, so that's that.For skills, apparently I was unaware they removed the x4 skill points at first level. Hence 3 too many.
So I'll drop all but intimidate by 1.
|
|
Okay, I just got home, so now I have a chance to respond some more to help complete the above cleric build.
@Cartigan
I went through and finished my check of the character. I had two more things pop up on the build. First, I'm not sure how you got to 17 skill points. AFAICT, you should have 14 skill points if you include your favored class bonuses.Alternatively, I think you're an HP short. You should have 7d8+7 hp that amounts to 42 hp on average. 8+(4.5 x 6)+7 = 42 by my calculations for an average HP.
I think those should finish out your build.
I also admit to not being able to do math.
On my HP, I think I only added 6 when calculating the Con bonus, so that's that.For skills, apparently I was unaware they removed the x4 skill points at first level. Hence 3 too many.
So I'll drop all but intimidate by 1.
Alright, then we're good! :D
I think the most unfortunate thing about the class is that even the Gish base class is better off going into Eldrich Knight once he qualifies. So what's the point?
How'd you reach this conclusion? At the very least you want to take the 8th level of magus before going EK. 8th includes a +1 BAB, a +1 to Fort and Will, an additional +1 bonus value out of Arcane Weapon, and the reduction to penalties of Improved Spell Combat. A Magus 8/EK X beats a Magus 7/EK X+1 every level from 8 to 17.
|
|
I think the most unfortunate thing about the class is that even the Gish base class is better off going into Eldrich Knight once he qualifies. So what's the point?How'd you reach this conclusion? At the very least you want to take the 8th level of magus before going EK. 8th includes a +1 BAB, a +1 to Fort and Will, an additional +1 bonus value out of Arcane Weapon, and the reduction to penalties of Improved Spell Combat. A Magus 8/EK X beats a Magus 7/EK X+1 every level from 8 to 17.
I think the point was that taking EK X instead of straight magus being a no brainer is a bad thing...except I don't really consider the magus going into EK exactly a no brainer....
|
|
This holds true at 2nd level, only now (with a high risk of failure) you can try to attack AND cast a spell in the same round.A class ability with a hihg risk of failure isn't really a class ability.
Spell failure is what makes it balanced. Just like rogues only being able to use sneak attack when flanking or if the opponent is flat footed, and spells having saves and spell resistance.
If you take it away entirely, the class becomes unbalanced at low levels.
|
|
How's this work then
** spoiler omitted **
There I added some spells.
This is helpful, good. To make it simple I'm going to just take the functional equivalent of your equipment.
Off the top, I have 12 more hit points.
Your AC is 22 unbuffed, mine is only 20 (+6 Breastplate, +2 Enhancement, +1 Dex, RoP). I don't get access to heavy until 13th, so this is significant.
I get 5 skill points a level (2 from class, 3 from int) giving me a significant advantage here. Without laying them out, I have 35 to play with vs your 17.
I'm +13 to attack, as opposed to your + 12. (5 Base, 5 str, 1 weapon focus, 1 arcane bond, +1 weapon).
I will do 1d8+7 regular, and if I power attack, it will be at +11 doing 1d8+11. So you have an advantage in damage done through the attack without any extras. However as long as I don't roll a 1, I can use spell combat to burn 0 level spells all day to add 1d3 of ray of frost or acid splash to the attack, which makes it pretty close.
If it is straight Melee, I can cast as part of spell combat haste and get two full base attacks (I would need to roll above an 8, with the opportunity to re-roll once a day only needing to roll a 5, so odds are good this works. and I can be in combat, attacking twice, without having to use a round to buff.
Or I can hit you with an empowered lightning bolt as part of the attack, doing an average of 31 damage (7d6=21 + 50% damage) with the bolt, and if I hit adding 1d8+7 (average 11) meaning on the first attack on average I have you at negative hit points.
Or if there is a buff round could add shocking grasp (5d4) to the attack, casting it before I go into melee and having it as part of the attacks, in addition to the lightning bolt.
If I am missing something, or I added wrong, let me know, but I feel pretty good about my build.
If you're attacking me specifically, I just Demoralize you then work from there while having Spiritual Weapon generate a Greatsword help me beat you up for 7 rounds
And believe you me, more armor is better than more health.
|
|
If you're attacking me specifically, I just Demoralize you then work from there while having Spiritual Weapon generate a Greatsword help me beat you up for 7 rounds
And believe you me, more armor is better than more health.
Round 1, I'll even give you initiative.
Demoralize is a standard action, so while you are trying to intimidate me, you can't attack. If you succeed (which you may since my wisdom stinks, and you only need a 6) I get a -2 to a bunch of things.
But I can still cast, so I hit you with an empowered lightning bolt. Your reflex save isn't so good, so you probably take the average damage of 31.
Round 2.
You cast spiritual weapon the next round (assuming you don't use the round to heal) and it appears at attacks at a +8 (your base + your wisdom mod) which means it has less than a 50/50 chance of hitting me, and when it does we are talking 2d6 +2. Average damage of 8.
Unless you rolled more than an 11, I'm no longer demoralized. If I'm close enough I can move up and try and hit you, my average damage being 9 regularly, which would take you down to 1 hit point. Or for the seame effect from distance I can cast magic missile (3 missiles at 1d4 +1 for an average of 9 damage) or scorching ray (2 rays 4d6 each as ranged touch for an average of 22 damage).
You are at 1 hit point, or less. Even if your spiritual weapon crits for max damage, you would have done 28 damage. Since it has a less than 50% chance to hit me, this seems unlikely.
What did I miss.
I think the point was that taking EK X instead of straight magus being a no brainer is a bad thing...except I don't really consider the magus going into EK exactly a no brainer....I think the most unfortunate thing about the class is that even the Gish base class is better off going into Eldrich Knight once he qualifies. So what's the point?How'd you reach this conclusion? At the very least you want to take the 8th level of magus before going EK. 8th includes a +1 BAB, a +1 to Fort and Will, an additional +1 bonus value out of Arcane Weapon, and the reduction to penalties of Improved Spell Combat. A Magus 8/EK X beats a Magus 7/EK X+1 every level from 8 to 17.
That is what I meant, yes level 8 would be optimal levels of Magus.
How is it NOT? Lose one caster level (boohoo) and gain enough BAB to get a 4th attack EVENTUALLY. You've gotten everything good from the class why not PrC out? Especially when you AUTOMATICALLY qualify.Let's see what he misses out on by NOT going EK at level 9:
Another +2 to attack rolls while using spell combat-well he'll have a higher BAB so no loss there.
Heavy armor-meh he's better off in medium armor really.
Fighter Training-gets to add his WHOLE EK level to Ftr training, so no big loss. Although if you really want some fighter only feats, of which there are only a few worthwhile, go Magus 10.
Counterstrike-as has been said this is very weak when you get it.
An extra +2 to your weapon-I admit I'd miss this but again...higher BAB so yeah.
Bonus Feats-more in EK.
Arcana-there's only 2 or 3 worthwhile anyway. Take those before going over to EK.
What did I miss.
This crappy forum ate my post.
You missed a couple things
1) I wasn't assuming this was PvP
2) Changes I would make per point 1 and any other way combat can go.
Per point 1, I prepare Spell Immunity instead of Restoration.
What do you do then? You have an angry Half-Orc Cleric immune to your damaging spells. What do you do?
|
|
What did I miss.This crappy forum ate my post.
You missed a couple things
1) I wasn't assuming this was PvP
2) Changes I would make per point 1 and any other way combat can go.Per point 1, I prepare Spell Immunity instead of Restoration.
What do you do then? You have an angry Half-Orc Cleric immune to your damaging spells. What do you do?
I point you toward the spell and ask which spell you are you immune to.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells---final/spell-immunity
Since you are level 7, that means you can be immune to one spell. So I may have to cast Scorching ray instead of lightning bolt.
|
|
To be fair to Cartigan, a magus should be able to kick his cleric's ass in a PvP fight. His cleric is much more useful to the party as a healer, while the Magus's job is to hurt stuff.
It isn't unbalanced that the Magus can crush a cleric head up, because a cleric can heal the party, much like a bard can buff a party.
My point in doing this is to show the Magus can do it's job (damage dealer) very effectively.
To be fair to Cartigan, a magus should be able to kick his cleric's ass in a PvP fight. His cleric is much more useful to the party as a healer, while the Magus's job is to hurt stuff.
It isn't unbalanced that the Magus can crush a cleric head up, because a cleric can heal the party, much like a bard can buff a party.
My point in doing this is to show the Magus can do it's job (damage dealer) very effectively.
Has it been clarified that the magus is meant to be a damage dealer?
I saw a good mix of direct damage, battlefield control, and buff spells on his spell list. He looks like a more offensive bard to me.
|
|
To be fair to Cartigan, a magus should be able to kick his cleric's ass in a PvP fight. His cleric is much more useful to the party as a healer, while the Magus's job is to hurt stuff.
It isn't unbalanced that the Magus can crush a cleric head up, because a cleric can heal the party, much like a bard can buff a party.
My point in doing this is to show the Magus can do it's job (damage dealer) very effectively.
Has it been clarified that the magus is meant to be a damage dealer?
I saw a good mix of direct damage, battlefield control, and buff spells on his spell list. He looks like a more offensive bard to me.
I think that is somewhat fair, although Bard's can buff a party much more effectively than a Magus. I think the idea is somewhere between a wizard and a fighter. And I think they accomplished that.
It needs tweaks, but the concept is sound and I would argue it isn't underpowered, at least not at the level we just looked at (It actually gets a big bump at 8th level...)
To be fair to Cartigan, a magus should be able to kick his cleric's ass in a PvP fight. His cleric is much more useful to the party as a healer, while the Magus's job is to hurt stuff.
It isn't unbalanced that the Magus can crush a cleric head up, because a cleric can heal the party, much like a bard can buff a party.
My point in doing this is to show the Magus can do it's job (damage dealer) very effectively.
Except putting it in a PvP situation vs the Cleric isn't a valid comparison OR a valid proof of effectiveness.