|
I think people are missing the point of this class in all the complaining. It’s call gaining variety without losing balance.
At first level, you have as many hp as a rogue or bard, with the ability to cast the same number of spells as a wizard, only with a smaller spell list and no familiar (or bonded weapon)
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.
At third, Wizards start getting higher level spells, but the Magus gets an extra spell, starts getting a higher BAB and the ability to channel spells into Magus Arcana.
I could go on down the line, and yes there should be fine tuning, but this is a balanced class that can fill multiple rolls in each battle. You want higher BAB, burn a few spells on Magus Arcana or buff yourself up with spells. Want to blast, throw the fireball you get only two levels later than a wizard.
Would I like an Arcane Ranger Variant (trade most of the Ranger feats and maybe some skill points for the spells coming from the Arcane list), yes.
Would I like a true battle bard (Trade Bardic Performance/fascintate/etc…for full BAB), yes.
I want these things because I want options, but you have to have a trade off if you want them balanced. I want everyone at the table to have a chance to shine, because that is why it is fun. But I also want everyone to have a fear of being squashed like a bug, because that is why you feel good when you don’t get a TPK.
If you want a god mode, find a DM who will let you be a god. I think most of us find that boring.
Well said. You hit the nail right on the head.
A couple of problems with your post:
1. you have 2 fewer spells than a wizard at 1st level, not the same as you claim. 1 the wizard gets for specializing and 1 for arcane bond.
2. You compare them to a rogue and bard for HP, but not for offense. Both Rogue and bard beat them solidly. Bard gets +1 to hit and damage, and can give this to allies. Rogue gets an extra d6 damage. Both also get significantly more skill points. The Magus gets the ability to deliver shocking grasp, 1d6 extra damage once per day, through his weapon on the condition that he gives up his 1 spell slot and casts the spell as normal.
I am not saying the Magus is not a good class overall. But I think at 1st level it needs a little boost.
Dude,
You clearly are not Munchkin material.
|
|
A couple of problems with your post:
1. you have 2 fewer spells than a wizard at 1st level, not the same as you claim. 1 the wizard gets for specializing and 1 for arcane bond.
2. You compare them to a rogue and bard for HP, but not for offense. Both Rogue and bard beat them solidly. Bard gets +1 to hit and damage, and can give this to allies. Rogue gets an extra d6 damage. Both also get significantly more skill points. The Magus gets the ability to deliver shocking grasp, 1d6 extra damage once per day, through his weapon on the condition that he gives up his 1 spell slot and casts the spell as normal.
I am not saying the Magus is not a good class overall. But I think at 1st level it needs a little boost.
Fair points, but we have to assume more touch spells will be added to make spellstrike useful at first level. And keep in mind that at first level, cantrips are actually pretty helpful and being able to cast a first level spell like burning hands can be damn powerful. I still say it holds serve with the others.
I would say you have to be careful what you give at 1st level, lest it become a 1 dip class.
I think people are missing the point of this class in all the complaining. It’s call gaining variety without losing balance.
At first level, you have as many hp as a rogue or bard, with the ability to cast the same number of spells as a wizard, only with a smaller spell list and no familiar (or bonded weapon)
But he has same as Bard, less hit/damage, smaller list than Bard, and less skill points.
Bard beats him at level 1. Bards aren't limited to 1 handing weapon.
A couple of problems with your post:
1. you have 2 fewer spells than a wizard at 1st level, not the same as you claim. 1 the wizard gets for specializing and 1 for arcane bond.
2. You compare them to a rogue and bard for HP, but not for offense. Both Rogue and bard beat them solidly. Bard gets +1 to hit and damage, and can give this to allies. Rogue gets an extra d6 damage. Both also get significantly more skill points. The Magus gets the ability to deliver shocking grasp, 1d6 extra damage once per day, through his weapon on the condition that he gives up his 1 spell slot and casts the spell as normal.
I am not saying the Magus is not a good class overall. But I think at 1st level it needs a little boost.
Fair points, but we have to assume more touch spells will be added to make spellstrike useful at first level. And keep in mind that at first level, cantrips are actually pretty helpful and being able to cast a first level spell like burning hands can be damn powerful. I still say it holds serve with the others.
I would say you have to be careful what you give at 1st level, lest it become a 1 dip class.
Shocking grasp is already one of the better damage spells for its level, but it doesn't matter how much choise you have in 1st level touch spells because no matter what you will only get 1-2 per day. The problem is that you have to dedicate your wide spell choice to this limmitted selection of spells to use your 1 class ability. Bard already gets spells, and he gets other abilities. Same with the inquisitor and alchemist, which get much more for a 1 level dip. You can't use burning hands if your using spellstrike, since your spell slot will be taken up by a touch spell. Right now, this is one of the absolute worste classes to level dip into.
|
|
But he has same as Bard, less hit/damage, smaller list than Bard, and less skill points.Bard beats him at level 1. Bards aren't limited to 1 handing weapon.
And Bards never get fireballs and can't cast and attack at the same time, starting at level 2. Not to mention the Bard spell list is very limited... and there is another conversation on here where people are complaining the Magus makes the Arcane Duelist Bard variant obsolete.
Yes, Bard beats Magus at level 1. Bard also beats most classes at level 1 if you really look at it. Hell Barbarian pretty much beats everyone at level 1 if you are only looking at level 1 combat.
If a Magus has even a 12 Int, it gets 2 1st level arcane spells, cantrips, and the ability to hit AND add spell damage from a touch attack spell, at first level.
Which seems to me about right.
I think people are missing the point of this class in all the complaining. It’s call gaining variety without losing balance.
It's called a class that is bad at what it is designed to do. Who is going to play it as a PC?
Should I cobble together a Cleric and show how it is better as a melee combat-caster than the Magus?
I won't even insult your intelligence by doing it with a combat-oriented Druid.
|
|
Right now, this is one of the absolute worste classes to level dip into.
I think that is on purpose, but I see your point and don't completely disagree with you. Any Gish class has the danger of being an overpowered dip, and I think they are erring on the side of caution at this point in the playtest.
I can see an argument for trading out spellstrike (which seems to be getting panned) for the ability to burn spells for a bonus to damage. I would be fine with having the abilty to burn a spell for a 2d6 bonus to damage for each level of spell burned.
That would end up being 2d6 for a 1st, 4d6 for 2nd, 6d6 for 3rd, etc... as which would give a significant (but limited) boost at low level without becoming overpowered at high level.
Burning a 6th level would be 12d6, which seems like a lot until you consider you have to be in melee to use it and 6th level spells usually do close to this much damage from range.
This would give 1st levels functionally 2d6 bonus to damage twice a day, and would make trading out spells practical, and it would give you something to in melee that could really be effective.
I do think the concentration check should be really hard to do at low levels for balance reasons, or they could redo the mechanic, but either way casting spells at 1st level as a swift action, whenever you want to, should not be done. The thing I don't agree with is the one handed weapon restriction. It restricts build options. I would rather take the nerf somewhere else within the mechanics of the class.
I think people are missing the point of this class in all the complaining. It’s call gaining variety without losing balance.
It's called a class that is bad at what it is designed to do. Who is going to play it as a PC?
Should I cobble together a Cleric and show how it is better as a melee combat-caster than the Magus?
I won't even insult your intelligence by doing it with a combat-oriented Druid.
Well if you have the time, I'd be interested to see this.
Assuming of course you're willing to do it at various levels (maybe 1, 5, 10, 15, 20?) instead of just at the low ones.
|
I think people are missing the point of this class in all the complaining. It’s call gaining variety without losing balance.
It's called a class that is bad at what it is designed to do. Who is going to play it as a PC?
Should I cobble together a Cleric and show how it is better as a melee combat-caster than the Magus?
I won't even insult your intelligence by doing it with a combat-oriented Druid.Well if you have the time, I'd be interested to see this.
Assuming of course you're willing to do it at various levels (maybe 1, 5, 10, 15, 20?) instead of just at the low ones.
Are you serious? Clerics have way better buffs and spells designed for melee combat. Even after the 3.5 nerf, they are still good at melee.
|
|
Monks gain Improved Unarmed Strike to fulfill there role, I think that adding Combat Casting as a free bonus feat at 1st level is a good idea for the Magus. In the small number of tests runs I've performed it seems like this becomes necessary for the build, and anything necessary should be included in the base class IMO.
I don't think that would be too much to turn it into the ultimate dip class either. Heck, you could give it at 2nd level and solve all of the same problems and make single level dipping even less attractive.
Right now, this is one of the absolute worste classes to level dip into.I think that is on purpose, but I see your point and don't completely disagree with you. Any Gish class has the danger of being an overpowered dip, and I think they are erring on the side of caution at this point in the playtest.
I can see an argument for trading out spellstrike (which seems to be getting panned) for the ability to burn spells for a bonus to damage. I would be fine with having the abilty to burn a spell for a 2d6 bonus to damage for each level of spell burned.
That would end up being 2d6 for a 1st, 4d6 for 2nd, 6d6 for 3rd, etc... as which would give a significant (but limited) boost at low level without becoming overpowered at high level.
Burning a 6th level would be 12d6, which seems like a lot until you consider you have to be in melee to use it and 6th level spells usually do close to this much damage from range.
This would give 1st levels functionally 2d6 bonus to damage twice a day, and would make trading out spells practical, and it would give you something to in melee that could really be effective.
Oh god please whatever the change I hope it does not burn their spells. It would not solve anything. The only issue with spell strike is the lack of touch spells availabe, resulting in only shocking grasp being on their list. They have said multiple times that this is being remedied.
The current problem is that they have to rely on their spells at low levels to do anything and they don't get many of them. Other, similar, classes like the Bard get other abilities to augment their spellcasting. This class needs something to boost its low level damage output.
|
|
It's called a class that is bad at what it is designed to do. Who is going to play it as a PC?Should I cobble together a Cleric and show how it is better as a melee combat-caster than the Magus?
I won't even insult your intelligence by doing it with a combat-oriented Druid.
Of course you can. That is why the Cleric has the battle domain, so people can make a melee focused cleric. But that melee focused Cleric will casts divine spells and will have role play expectations as a Cleric, and limitations based on what the deity it worships wants it to do. At least it would if your DM is halfway decent and expects a Cleric to be a Cleric.
And I am sure you can make an Eldrich Knight who can do more damage a round and will get 9th level spells. There is a whole thread on comparing the two, which is fine because the Eldrich Knight is a Gish prestige class. They are cousins.
But if you want to cast spells and fight in the same round, this is the only class that can do that (even if it is hard to do). And if you want to wear heavy armor while casting without a chance of spell failure, this is the only class that can do that. If you want access to fighter combat feats, albeit at half level, this class can do that, all while wielding an arcane bonded weapon and throwing fireballs and using other arcane spells.
This class does things other classes don’t do. The style is different than other classes that exist. It is a new available option, which is very different from the existing options for base classes. And with tweaks it will be effective in a role within the party without outshining all of the other classes.
That is the goal.
Making an uberclass that can do things better than any other class is not the goal. It should not be able to beat a fighter in Melee, nor should it be able to beat a Wizard in a spell war. And I would hope a battle cleric can compete with a Battle Magus, because if you are focusing on making a melee Cleric, it should be on par with the Magus.
That is the goal.
|
|
Monks gain Improved Unarmed Strike to fulfill there role, I think that adding Combat Casting as a free bonus feat at 1st level is a good idea for the Magus. In the small number of tests runs I've performed it seems like this becomes necessary for the build, and anything necessary should be included in the base class IMO.
I don't think that would be too much to turn it into the ultimate dip class either. Heck, you could give it at 2nd level and solve all of the same problems and make single level dipping even less attractive.
This makes sense to me.
Are you serious? Clerics have way better buffs and spells designed for melee combat. Even after the 3.5 nerf, they are still good at melee.
I totally disagree with this statement. Clerics get 3 good buffs, 2 of which do not stack. Divine Power, Divine Favor, and Righteous Might. The Magus gets many, but they are not as powerful or are more defensive: Enlare Person, shield, blur, mirror image, alter self, beast shapes, displacement, haste, elemental bodies, fire shield, greater invisibility, stoneskin. None of them are as big as the cleric's, but I would take the magus list any day of the week.
Oh god please whatever the change I hope it does not burn their spells. It would not solve anything. The only issue with spell strike is the lack of touch spells availabe, resulting in only shocking grasp being on their list. They have said multiple times that this is being remedied.The current problem is that they have to rely on their spells at low levels to do anything and they don't get many of them. Other, similar, classes like the Bard get other abilities to augment their spellcasting. This class needs something to boost its low level damage output.
There is a reason I didn't address the spell list in my critique - it's immaterial. We will have NO idea as to what spells the class will really get until it's released. That is a bad idea, IMO, but that's how it is going to be.
However, that doesn't still makes Spell Strike take up two actions for no particular reason that is discernible from how the ability is written other than to allow you to use Shocking Grasp at 15' with a Whip.
Are you serious? Clerics have way better buffs and spells designed for melee combat. Even after the 3.5 nerf, they are still good at melee.I think people are missing the point of this class in all the complaining. It’s call gaining variety without losing balance.
It's called a class that is bad at what it is designed to do. Who is going to play it as a PC?
Should I cobble together a Cleric and show how it is better as a melee combat-caster than the Magus?
I won't even insult your intelligence by doing it with a combat-oriented Druid.Well if you have the time, I'd be interested to see this.
Assuming of course you're willing to do it at various levels (maybe 1, 5, 10, 15, 20?) instead of just at the low ones.
I would be interested to see how long the two classes need to prepare for battle as well as how far ahead their preparations start, so I can gauge how screwed over they are when going against a dispelling wizard, or a foe that doesn't just wait for you to buff.
There is also the question of how many times a day they can pull off their respective buffs.
I totally disagree with this statement. Clerics get 3 good buffs, 2 of which do not stack. Divine Power, Divine Favor, and Righteous Might. The Magus gets many, but they are not as powerful or are more defensive: Enlare Person, shield, blur, mirror image, alter self, beast shapes, displacement, haste, elemental bodies, fire shield, greater invisibility, stoneskin. None of them are as big as the cleric's, but I would take the magus one any day of the week.
Are you serious? Clerics have way better buffs and spells designed for melee combat. Even after the 3.5 nerf, they are still good at melee.
...what?
An 8th level Cleric of War can cast Divine Power and Righteous Might.Just those gives you a +4 size bonus to Str and Con (+2 to attack and damage, +2/lvl HP), +2 luck bonus to attack rolls and damage, a Haste effect, DR 5/Evil, +2 Natural Armor, 2*lvl HP, and lvl temp HP.
Never mind Battle Rage, Prayer (which, while not increasing attack because of stacking, provides a +1 to saves an an effective +1 to armor), or any of its offensive spells which it is better at casting in melee than the Magus.
I totally disagree with this statement. Clerics get 3 good buffs, 2 of which do not stack. Divine Power, Divine Favor, and Righteous Might. The Magus gets many, but they are not as powerful or are more defensive: Enlare Person, shield, blur, mirror image, alter self, beast shapes, displacement, haste, elemental bodies, fire shield, greater invisibility, stoneskin. None of them are as big as the cleric's, but I would take the magus one any day of the week.
Are you serious? Clerics have way better buffs and spells designed for melee combat. Even after the 3.5 nerf, they are still good at melee....what?
An 8th level Cleric of War can cast Divine Power and Righteous Might.
Just those gives you a +4 size bonus to Str and Con (+2 to attack and damage, +2/lvl HP), +2 luck bonus to attack rolls and damage, a Haste effect, DR 5/Evil, +2 Natural Armor, 2*lvl HP, and lvl temp HP.
Never mind Battle Rage, Prayer (which, while not increasing attack because of stacking, provides a +1 to saves an an effective +1 to armor), or any of its offensive spells which it is better at casting in melee than the Magus.
It cannot cast any of its terrible offensive spells in mellee while usuing the buffs it just spent. The magus on the other hand can attack while buffing, gets haste, enlarge person and mirror image, giving him better defenses than the cleric and aiding his allies. And he doesn't have to wait until level 9 to do it, since he is not relying on a 4th and 5th level spell (not sure how you get righteous might at 8).
It cannot cast any of its terrible offensive spells in mellee while usuing the buffs it just spent. The magus on the other hand can attack while buffing, gets haste, enlarge person and mirror image, giving him better defenses than the cleric and aiding his allies. And he doesn't have to wait until level 9 to do it, since he is not relying on a 4th and 5th level spell (not sure how you get righteous might at 8).
Even if he can full attack and cast in the same round (with terrible chances I remind you), that is still 3 spells that don't approach what the Cleric has done with two.
I got it at 8th because I don't do straight lines well. Either way, fine. we can boost it to 9th. That takes the Magus partially out of the crap Spell Combat system. And those spells aid his allies?|
|
Every class has benefits and flaws, as we have all seen the many threads discussing each class and why it is "teh awesome" or "teh suk." I think that once the Magus is playtested a little, and the spell list is pumped up some (which I assume will be happening in the Ultimate Magic book). This class will be both playable, and fun. There have been a lot of people asking for just this sort of thing, and Paizo delivers, yet again. Not to bandwagon much, but most of us are here because we like the Pathfinder system, and we think that the Paizo staff have mostly hit the mark. I don't see this being fundamentally different. Anyone looked back at the original posts after the Pathfinder core rulebook was released? Check in on the playtest posts for the Advanced Player's Guide recently? Similar.
My only issue with Spell Combat is at 2nd level it's not really worth it.
To fix it with out really changing the feature I suggest moving the bonus feat at 5th to 2nd, move arcane weapon to 5th, move spell combat to 4th.
As is Now
1 Cantrips, spellstrike
2 Spell combat
3 Magus arcana
4 Arcane weapon
5 Bonus feat
My Change
1 Cantrips, spellstrike
2 Bonus Feat
3 Magus arcana
4 Spell Combat
5 Arcane Weapon
What this does is give you bonus feat which you can spend on Combat Casting a little earlier or anything else. As it's happens at 2nd level you could grab combat casting at 1st level and weapon focus at 2nd. Definitely more useful than Spell Combat at 2nd. Spell Combat at 4th is more workable giving you a better chance at 1st level spells. Arcane weapon at 5th should work with a minor change om the progression to keep the same.
|
I totally disagree with this statement. Clerics get 3 good buffs, 2 of which do not stack. Divine Power, Divine Favor, and Righteous Might. The Magus gets many, but they are not as powerful or are more defensive: Enlare Person, shield, blur, mirror image, alter self, beast shapes, displacement, haste, elemental bodies, fire shield, greater invisibility, stoneskin. None of them are as big as the cleric's, but I would take the magus one any day of the week.
Are you serious? Clerics have way better buffs and spells designed for melee combat. Even after the 3.5 nerf, they are still good at melee....what?
An 8th level Cleric of War can cast Divine Power and Righteous Might.
Just those gives you a +4 size bonus to Str and Con (+2 to attack and damage, +2/lvl HP), +2 luck bonus to attack rolls and damage, a Haste effect, DR 5/Evil, +2 Natural Armor, 2*lvl HP, and lvl temp HP.
Never mind Battle Rage, Prayer (which, while not increasing attack because of stacking, provides a +1 to saves an an effective +1 to armor), or any of its offensive spells which it is better at casting in melee than the Magus.
I'm confused how is a cleric any better or worse at casting in melee then a Magus?
You keep repeating this mantra which is completely false they have the exact same chances of casting in melee on the defensive as a Magus (At higher levels a Magus is actually better right now, but thats another story. It also has 0 % chance of casting in combat and making a full attack.
Blur = 20% miss chance
Shield +7 to Ac
Mirror Image absorbs spells and physical attacks completely
Displacement 50% miss chance
Greater Invisibility +4 to attack opponents considered flat footed
Beast Shape I
+2 str +2 NA bonus + flight or climb or scent or dark vision
Form of the Dragon I
Divine Power is a 4th level spell
Righteous Might is a 5th level spell
I'm confused how is a cleric any better or worse at casting in melee then a Magus?
Since you have REFUSED to listen to me in any of the dozen Magus threads where I explain this, I will say it one more time for the benefit of other people.
The Magus is a split-focus class, a Cleric is a primary caster. As a primary caster, it would focus on having a higher casting stat which, due to changes in Concentration, is directly related to casting defensively. Thereby making every primary caster in the game better at casting in melee than the Magus.
Designing a melee-caster around the Pathfinder Concentration mechanic was short-sighted. At best.
I'm confused how is a cleric any better or worse at casting in melee then a Magus?Since you have REFUSED to listen to me in any of the dozen Magus threads where I explain this, I will say it one more time for the benefit of other people.
The Magus is a split-focus class, a Cleric is a primary caster. As a primary caster, it would focus on having a higher casting stat which, due to changes in Concentration, is directly related to casting defensively. Thereby making every primary caster in the game better at casting in melee than the Magus.
Designing a melee-caster around the Pathfinder Concentration mechanic was short-sighted. At best.
I dunno C--I'm with you that a Wizard will have higher Int than a Magus due to greater focus. I'm even with you that a caster Cleric will have higher Wis than a Magus, but if you're specifically talking about a melee Cleric, that's a split focus class too. She'll probably be built optimally very much like the optimal Magus (but with Wis where the Magus has Int).
That's possible. But there is still the point of the Cleric not still lever actually having to cast while threatened due to the five foot step.
The Cleric is not getting any benefit of standing there and having to cast instead of stepping out of threat range. Or, they can just not cast defensively at all and make the enemy try and hit their armor. The Magus, in order to get the benefit he is being touted for having, must cast defensively.
That's possible. But there is still the point of the Cleric not still lever actually having to cast while threatened due to the five foot step.
The Cleric is not getting any benefit of standing there and having to cast instead of stepping out of threat range. Or, they can just not cast defensively at all and make the enemy try and hit their armor. The Magus, in order to get the benefit he is being touted for having, must cast defensively.
I'll give you that, for most circumstances (like unless the Cleric is flanked by enemies that have a good shot at thwacking her). Also, its worth noting that a battle Cleric will even have a slightly harder time casting her best spells on the defensive than a Magus since they are higher level.
The only issue with spell strike is the lack of touch spells availabe
No, the issue with spell strike is that it's insane to give up a free attack action against touch AC just to add the same amount of potential damage to a standard attack the next round. Spell strike is only useful when you missed your free touch attack, and so have the charge still ready anyway.
The best thing is that I agree with the title of this thread.
Balance matters!
Too bad the Magus ain't balanced yet!
|
|
It cannot cast any of its terrible offensive spells in mellee while usuing the buffs it just spent. The magus on the other hand can attack while buffing, gets haste, enlarge person and mirror image, giving him better defenses than the cleric and aiding his allies. And he doesn't have to wait until level 9 to do it, since he is not relying on a 4th and 5th level spell (not sure how you get righteous might at 8).Even if he can full attack and cast in the same round (with terrible chances I remind you), that is still 3 spells that don't approach what the Cleric has done with two.
I got it at 8th because I don't do straight lines well. Either way, fine. we can boost it to 9th. That takes the Magus partially out of the crap Spell Combat system. And those spells aid his allies?
You are completely discounting the difference between the offensive power of arcane spells vs divine spells. 9d6 Fireballs and Lightning Bolts are pretty nice.
Not to mention by 9th level the Magus can get two attacks in per round while casting his buffs, or fireballs, or lightning bolts...
Actually play test a Magus at 9th level. It's pretty damn formidable.
|
|
The only issue with spell strike is the lack of touch spells availabeNo, the issue with spell strike is that it's insane to give up a free attack action against touch AC just to add the same amount of potential damage to a standard attack the next round. Spell strike is only useful when you missed your free touch attack, and so have the charge still ready anyway.
No, it means you get to add the damage from the attack in addition to the damage from the spell, and while still getting all of your remaining attacks for the round. Combine this with the fact you basically get to cast a free spell (with attack penalty) and now you can cast fireball, unitize the saved shocking grasp, and if you have a high enough base attack keep swinging the rest of your attacks out, all in the same round.
It cannot cast any of its terrible offensive spells in mellee while usuing the buffs it just spent. The magus on the other hand can attack while buffing, gets haste, enlarge person and mirror image, giving him better defenses than the cleric and aiding his allies. And he doesn't have to wait until level 9 to do it, since he is not relying on a 4th and 5th level spell (not sure how you get righteous might at 8).Even if he can full attack and cast in the same round (with terrible chances I remind you), that is still 3 spells that don't approach what the Cleric has done with two.
I got it at 8th because I don't do straight lines well. Either way, fine. we can boost it to 9th. That takes the Magus partially out of the crap Spell Combat system. And those spells aid his allies?
You are completely discounting the difference between the offensive power of arcane spells vs divine spells. 9d6 Fireballs and Lightning Bolts are pretty nice.
Not to mention by 9th level the Magus can get two attacks in per round while casting his buffs, or fireballs, or lightning bolts...
Actually play test a Magus at 9th level. It's pretty damn formidable.
9d6 fireballs and lightning bolts are terrible and useless.
|
|
I'm confused how is a cleric any better or worse at casting in melee then a Magus?Since you have REFUSED to listen to me in any of the dozen Magus threads where I explain this, I will say it one more time for the benefit of other people.
The Magus is a split-focus class, a Cleric is a primary caster. As a primary caster, it would focus on having a higher casting stat which, due to changes in Concentration, is directly related to casting defensively. Thereby making every primary caster in the game better at casting in melee than the Magus.
Designing a melee-caster around the Pathfinder Concentration mechanic was short-sighted. At best.
I know exactly what you have said and dismissed it as utter BS.
1. The Magus is a split focus class that requires a High Int High Str and possibly a decent dex and con. Not any different from a Paladin, Inquistor, Bard, Melee Cleric, Melee Wizard, Rogue etc...
That means low point builds are going to be difficult to play this is nothing new.
2. Spell Combat is ineffective which is untrue. 90% of your rant is focused on an ability that is not going to be used at low levels all that often. Spell Combat isn't going to come into its own until around 10th level, and you seem to think Magus will be gimped if it can't do this every single round in combat. Hate to break it to you, but its just not possible a Magus doesn't have enough spells until it reaches the higher levels to do this.
3. Concentration sucks at low levels its a nonissue at high levels it sucks for whom ever uses it and no matter what capacity they use it in. They have no plans to change this anytime soon. So screaming at the top of your lungs about concentration isn't going to change it, hell I sincerely doubt it will change spell combat at best you might get a reduction in penalties for using a light weapon, but the penalties will remain.
4. The Magus is going to be balanced around Int which means you will want a high int, because like the Paladin all of its abilities are going to be based off of Int.
But to get back to your assertation that a Cleric is better at casting in Melee. It isn't if a Cleric is in melee he is either going to suck at melee or he is going to be stated exactly like a Magus with its Wisdom at about the same level as the Magus's Int just like a shapeshifting melee druid or a transmuter Wizard who uses shapeshifting to melee. Clerics get the shaft even more so as they require a high chr for channeling a good wisdom for casting str/dex/con for fighting or just dex and con if they go weapon finesse route.
Not to mention by 9th level the Magus can get two attacks in per round while casting his buffs, or fireballs, or lightning bolts...
And I can get 5 attacks against a Displacer Beast.
|
|
Not to mention by 9th level the Magus can get two attacks in per round while casting his buffs, or fireballs, or lightning bolts...And I can get 5 attacks against a Displacer Beast.
Not while casting your buffs. Again, actually play test it. You keep talking about buffs, but in real game with a decent DM you actually have to play your turns as they come and generally by the time you cast all the buffs, you are either dead or someone else did all the heavy lifting.
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.
1. The Magus is a split focus class that requires a High Int High Str and possibly a decent dex and con. Not any different from a Paladin, Inquistor, Bard, Melee Cleric, Melee Wizard, Rogue etc...
Nope.
Paladin needs strength or dex and charisma. Two stats. Inquisitor needs strength or dex and wisdom. Two stats. Melee Cleric can buff his strength and constitution sky high. Wizard can shapeshift his strength, dex, and constitution sky high. Rogue needs JUST dexterity.
And all of them have a means of increasing their attack bonus.
2. Spell Combat is ineffective which is untrue. 90% of your rant is focused on an ability that is not going to be used at low levels all that often. Spell Combat isn't going to come into its own until around 10th level, and you seem to think Magus will be gimped if it can't do this every single round in combat. Hate to break it to you, but its just not possible a Magus doesn't have enough spells until it reaches the higher levels to do this.
Awesome, my class's key ability that I get at level 2 is worthless until level 10. How is this a defense?
3. Concentration sucks at low levels its a nonissue at high levels it sucks for whom ever uses it and no matter what capacity they use it in. They have no plans to change this anytime soon. So screaming at the top of your lungs about concentration isn't going to change it, hell I sincerely doubt it will change spell combat at best you might get a reduction in penalties for using a light weapon, but the penalties will remain.
"Well it just sucks." Again, are you defending the Magus or agreeing with us?
4. The Magus is going to be balanced around Int which means you will want a high int, because like the Paladin all of its abilities are going to be based off of Int.
Nope. The paladin can add charisma to his attack bonus and AC and get a huge bonus to his damage. The paladin also adds it to his saving throws on top of it being his prime casting class.
The Magus needs it to function.
But to get back to your assertation that a Cleric is better at casting in Melee. It isn't if a Cleric is in melee he is either going to suck at melee or he is going to be stated exactly like a Magus with its Wisdom at about the same level as the Magus's Int just like a shapeshifting melee druid or a transmuter Wizard who uses shapeshifting to melee. Clerics get the shaft even more so as they require a high chr for channeling a good wisdom for casting str/dex/con for fighting or just dex and con if they go weapon finesse route.
Battle clerics can safely give themselves medium stats, though, because again, they buff themselves into the stratosphere. Wizards and druids shapeshift themselves for the same reason. And clerics can easily ignore charisma and not give a damn about channeling.
Buffs are the key word here, and the few that the Magus gets are almost all defensive. As we've seen with the monk, a purely defensive character is an ignored character.
|
|
9d6 fireballs and lightning bolts are terrible and useless.
Relative to what? Seriously, that is more damage than any divine caster of equal level, before it gets it's regular attacks.
I read your other post, you don't want a balanced class, you want a god class. Find a DM who will give it to you and enjoy.
Has anyone who is complaining even tried to play test?
Not to mention by 9th level the Magus can get two attacks in per round while casting his buffs, or fireballs, or lightning bolts...And I can get 5 attacks against a Displacer Beast.Not while casting your buffs. Again, actually play test it. You keep talking about buffs, but in real game with a decent DM you actually have to play your turns as they come and generally by the time you cast all the buffs, you are either dead or someone else did all the heavy lifting.
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.
Hi!
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.
9d6 fireballs and lightning bolts are terrible and useless.
Relative to what? Seriously, that is more damage than any divine caster of equal level, before it gets it's regular attacks.
I read your other post, you don't want a balanced class, you want a god class. Find a DM who will give it to you and enjoy.
Has anyone who is complaining even tried to play test?
You don't really know how math works, do you?
9d6 = 31.5 damage on average.
CR9 creatures have 120+ HP.
9d6 damage is terrible and useless in comparison both to how much health monsters at that level have as well as how much damage other classes are doing.
Not while casting your buffs.Not to mention by 9th level the Magus can get two attacks in per round while casting his buffs, or fireballs, or lightning bolts...And I can get 5 attacks against a Displacer Beast.
You miss my point. Spell Combat is the equivalent of getting an off-hand weapon with a 50% chance of having no effect at all before you even make an attack roll.
|
|
1. The Magus is a split focus class that requires a High Int High Str and possibly a decent dex and con. Not any different from a Paladin, Inquistor, Bard, Melee Cleric, Melee Wizard, Rogue etc...Nope.
Paladin needs strength or dex and charisma. Two stats. Inquisitor needs strength or dex and wisdom. Two stats. Melee Cleric can buff his strength and constitution sky high. Wizard can shapeshift his strength, dex, and constitution sky high. Rogue needs JUST dexterity.
And all of them have a means of increasing their attack bonus.
2. Spell Combat is ineffective which is untrue. 90% of your rant is focused on an ability that is not going to be used at low levels all that often. Spell Combat isn't going to come into its own until around 10th level, and you seem to think Magus will be gimped if it can't do this every single round in combat. Hate to break it to you, but its just not possible a Magus doesn't have enough spells until it reaches the higher levels to do this.Awesome, my class's key ability that I get at level 2 is worthless until level 10. How is this a defense?
3. Concentration sucks at low levels its a nonissue at high levels it sucks for whom ever uses it and no matter what capacity they use it in. They have no plans to change this anytime soon. So screaming at the top of your lungs about concentration isn't going to change it, hell I sincerely doubt it will change spell combat at best you might get a reduction in penalties for using a light weapon, but the penalties will remain."Well it just sucks." Again, are you defending the Magus or agreeing with us?
4. The Magus is going to be balanced around Int which means you will want a high int, because like the Paladin all of its abilities are going to be based off of Int.Nope. The paladin can add charisma to his attack bonus and AC and get a huge bonus to his damage. The paladin also adds it to his saving throws on top of it being his prime...
1. You need Str and Int. Dex is marginal when you consider you can wear armor (eventually even heavy armor) and you can cast armor boosters. Wisdom and Cha are dump stats. Str will give you better to hit, and Int will also give you extra skill points, as anyone who has played a Wizard understands. And the wizard buffs you point out, the Magus has access to. So you have no point here that I can see.
2. You can cast an attack in the same round. It's like complaining that Rangers two weapon fighting having a -2 penalty is unfair at low levels because it makes you have a low BAB. I agree with someone earlier who said to add combat casting at 1st level, but other than that, yes the ability to cast a spell and attack in the same round should have some limiting factor to it.
3. Paladins can't cast fireballs, lightning bolts, or any of the other arcane spells. Your comparison is ridiculous. There is no full BAB because you get wizard spells at full caster level. Deal with it.\
Seriously, actually play test it at level in a real setting, then come back.
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.
|
|
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 don't really know how math works, do you?9d6 = 31.5 damage on average.
CR9 creatures have 120+ HP.
9d6 damage is terrible and useless in comparison both to how much health monsters at that level have as well as how much damage other classes are doing.
Plus a full round of attacks if in melee, which you keep neglecting to include. Probably because it doesn't fit your narrative.
While we are doing math, since a CR 9 creature has 120 hit points, and parties are generally are made up of 4 people. 31.5 X 4 = 126 = creature dead in 1 round.
From range.
And that damage was of course assuming a single target, which we both realize isn't usually how those spells work.
So what part of that is not balanced?
|
|
You miss my point. Spell Combat is the equivalent of getting an off-hand weapon with a 50% chance of having no effect at all before you even make an attack roll.Not while casting your buffs.Not to mention by 9th level the Magus can get two attacks in per round while casting his buffs, or fireballs, or lightning bolts...And I can get 5 attacks against a Displacer Beast.
An offhand weapon that if it does hit does far more damage than any offhand weapon.
Arcane spells are very powerful. You are right, at low level it is a major risk/reward thing. But when if it works 50% of the time (more often as you level or if you focus on concentration), than 50% of the time you are basically able to cast at a level a step below a wizard while also getting a full round attack at 3/4 bab.
I can see an argument for improving at low levels, so long as it doesn't overpower it at high levels. By 7th level this class definitely shines when you play it in live action.