So, I keep seeing the claim that the Magus will never be able to make the concentration check DCs needed to use Spell Combo and I find it flatly wrong. So I'm doing some math to show it. My sample Magus will be built with a 15 starting int, the same cha I recomend for bards. He will have +1 at level 4 for level and +2 at lvl 5 for an int headband, which upgrades to +4 and +6 at 12 and 18, for a total of 22 int at 18. I will not give him a tome of int, since he really does not need it. He will take comat casting at first level.
lvl / spl lvl / Con Bonus / Norm DC / SC DC / Norm Prob / SC Prob
1/1/7/17/-/ 55%
2/1/8/17/19/ 60/50%
3/1/9/17/19/ 65/55%
4/2/11/19/21/ 65/55%
5/2/13/19/21/ 75/65%
6/2/14/19/21/ 80/70%
7/3/15/21/23/ 75/65%
8/3/16/21/ 80%
9/3/17/21/ 85%
10/4/18/23/ 80%
11/4/19/23/ 85%
12/4/21/23/ 95%
13/5/22/25/ 90%
14/5/23/25/ 95%
15/5/24/25/ 95%
16/6/25/27/ 95%
17/6/26/27/ 95%
18/6/28/27/ 95%
19/6/29/27/ 95%
20/6/30/27/ 95%
As you can see, this magus has no problems casting his highest level spells defensively atfer the early levels. His probability never goes below 50%, even when using spell combat, and that is only at level 2. He has only a moderate intelligence, arround the lowest you will likely take in the class, and he does not have the trait to give hime annother +2 to his concentration checks.
I do not think that getting a spell off half the time in melee while also attacking is a bad ability for a level 2 character.
So, I keep seeing the claim that the Magus will never be able to make the concentration check DCs needed to use Spell Combo and I find it flatly wrong. So I'm doing some math to show it. My sample Magus will be built with a 15 starting int, the same cha I recomend for bards. He will have +1 at level 4 for level and +2 at lvl 5 for an int headband, which upgrades to +4 and +6 at 12 and 18, for a total of 22 int at 18. I will not give him a tome of int, since he really does not need it. He will take comat casting at first level.
** spoiler omitted **
As you can see, this magus has no problems casting his highest level spells defensively atfer the early levels. His probability never goes below 50%, even when using spell combat, and that is only at level 2. He has only a moderate intelligence, arround the lowest you will likely take in the class, and he does not have the trait to give hime annother +2 to his concentration checks.I do not think that getting a spell off half the time in melee while also attacking is a bad ability for a level 2 character.
heh my thread not good enough for you ? ;)
Well, from the math you presented, here's what I get:
1. The class has a feat tax: Combat Casting. He might as well get this automatically, since reducing those numbers by 20% for 3/4 of your levels will mean far worse stats.
2. Never play a Magus in a standard fantasy game. 15 Int is half your starting point buy. With starting in light armor only, you are looking at needing a decent Dex score to stay in combat (and Con really, too, since d8 hitpoints and forced into melee with Spell Combat).
That's not even getting into Strength to decent damage.
The rest can be assumed pretty easily (only 1 level increase and the headband isn't out of the question).
Honestly though, even with your expectations, you are looking at only 66% average chance over the levels most played (1-10), and ~75% average chance over the levels you'll play all of the Pathfinder APs (1-15).
Note that without Combat Casting, you are looking at fairly hideous probabilities (15-20% lower across the board).
Not to mention that the first 5-6 levels of gaming will feel like it's a waste of time. Not too nice feeling for a signature class ability.
So yeah.. I still think this needs to be fixed. Reduce the penalties and give Combat Casting (since the magus MUST be in melee combat and will likely face the gamut of concentration checks).
Your math only reinforces my feelings on this.
I would say that just as Eschew Materials was given as a free feat to sorcerers, Combat Casting makes sense as a freebie that should be tossed to Magi.
oh good someone who agree's been sayin it all day
I would say that just as Eschew Materials was given as a free feat to sorcerers, Combat Casting makes sense as a freebie that should be tossed to Magi.
I have also said this a couple times now. I forgot to put it in my opening post. I completely agree. Otherwise, only humans will be able to get it and arcane strike, which the Arcane Duelist alternate bard gets a free feat in place of bardic knowledge.
Well, from the math you presented, here's what I get:
1. The class has a feat tax: Combat Casting. He might as well get this automatically, since reducing those numbers by 20% for 3/4 of your levels will mean far worse stats.
2. Never play a Magus in a standard fantasy game. 15 Int is half your starting point buy. With starting in light armor only, you are looking at needing a decent Dex score to stay in combat (and Con really, too, since d8 hitpoints and forced into melee with Spell Combat).
That's not even getting into Strength to decent damage.The rest can be assumed pretty easily (only 1 level increase and the headband isn't out of the question).
Honestly though, even with your expectations, you are looking at only 66% average chance over the levels most played (1-10), and ~75% average chance over the levels you'll play all of the Pathfinder APs (1-15).
Note that without Combat Casting, you are looking at fairly hideous probabilities (15-20% lower across the board).Not to mention that the first 5-6 levels of gaming will feel like it's a waste of time. Not too nice feeling for a signature class ability.
So yeah.. I still think this needs to be fixed. Reduce the penalties and give Combat Casting (since the magus MUST be in melee combat and will likely face the gamut of concentration checks).
Your math only reinforces my feelings on this.
Interesting. I came to the exact opposite conclusion from you with the same data. Keep in mind most of the time you will not be casting your highest spell level. That increases the success rate by 10% each level. I also did some math on hit probablities and DPR over 2 rounds, and found that spell combat drasticly increases your DPR while casting spells.
As for getting a 15 in a 15 point buy, that is really trivial, even with a high priority on str.
str 16 (14+2)
dex 12
con 12
int 15
wis 10
cha 9
You can also dump wisdom and charisma more to get out some more con and dex. Your stat priority is exactly the same as a melee bard's, swapping int and charisma.
Not to mention that the first 5-6 levels of gaming will feel like it's a waste of time. Not too nice feeling for a signature class ability.I tend to agree that giving Combat Casting to the Magus seems to be a good idea, but this kind of hyperbole doesn't really help anything. The ability can be risky (and might even be too risky), but the spell still comes off more often than not, so I wouldn't call that a waste of time.
heh spell combat should come wth a disclaim unless your a dirty min maxer please note 1/3 to 1/2 of all you spells cast will fail before mid levels if this is going to ruin your game experence play somthing else ;)
So, I keep seeing the claim that the Magus will never be able to make the concentration check DCs needed to use Spell Combo and I find it flatly wrong. So I'm doing some math to show it. My sample Magus will be built with a 15 starting int, the same cha I recomend for bards. He will have +1 at level 4 for level and +2 at lvl 5 for an int headband, which upgrades to +4 and +6 at 12 and 18, for a total of 22 int at 18. I will not give him a tome of int, since he really does not need it. He will take comat casting at first level.
** spoiler omitted **
As you can see, this magus has no problems casting his highest level spells defensively atfer the early levels. His probability never goes below 50%, even when using spell combat, and that is only at level 2. He has only a moderate intelligence, arround the lowest you will likely take in the class, and he does not have the trait to give hime annother +2 to his concentration checks.I do not think that getting a spell off half the time in melee while also attacking is a bad ability for a level 2 character.
heh my thread not good enough for you ? ;)
It wasn't explicitly named enough and I missed it. I saw like 5 people make the same claim that they would fail their concentration check more often than not, so I felt the need to correct them.
And your thread I see that people are correcting that concentration checks do not fail on 1. That raises a lot of my math to be 100% instead of 95%
One question I have, and to be honest haven't looked into it very hard yet, is how do you handle a concentration check when you take damage as well? Opponent readies an action to hit you when you start casting. Dos that increase the Concentration check DC or just make you make 2?
One question I have, and to be honest haven't looked into it very hard yet, is how do you handle a concentration check when you take damage as well? Opponent readies an action to hit you when you start casting. Dos that increase the Concentration check DC or just make you make 2?
increases DC by damage done make only 1 check
He will take comat casting at first level.
Every single argument about Spell Combat that includes "He will take Combat Casting at first level" is a false argument. Not only are you are not objectively testing Spell Combat but you are proving the class is feat taxed.
Let's CORRECT the OP's scenario, shall we?
Without Combat Casting, your success rate will drop by 4 for each level.
1/1/3/17/-/ 35%
2/1/4/17/19/ 40/30%
3/1/5/17/19/ 45/35%
[...]
You can see where that is going. The success rates are constantly 10-15% lower until your class level exceeds your continued increase in spell levels.
Of course, even if you include Combat Casting, you are arguing a 50% success rate for succeeding at what the class is designed to do is a desirable result. And in doing so you ignore that offensive spells themselves have success or failure conditions which are additionally hampered by the class' low casting stat.
He will take comat casting at first level.Every single argument about Spell Combat that includes "He will take Combat Casting at first level" is a false argument. Not only are you are not objectively testing Spell Combat but you are proving the class is feat taxed.
Let's CORRECT the OP's scenario, shall we?
Without Combat Casting, your success rate will drop by 4 for each level.
** spoiler omitted **You can see where that is going. The success rates are constantly 10-15% lower until your class level exceeds your continued increase in spell levels.
Of course, even if you include Combat Casting, you are arguing a 50% success rate for succeeding at what the class is designed to do is a desirable result. And in doing so you ignore that offensive spells themselves have success or failure conditions which are additionally hampered by the class' low casting stat.
Which is why I have said many times that this feat tax needs to be removed. In fact, multiple people have brought up this issue in this thread, and I agreed with it already. Perhaps you should learn to read.
|
Magus are no more Feat Taxed then Wizards, Sorcs, Clerics, Druids or any other spell caster.
By your logic Clerics should automaticly get selective channeling, because channel is useless if it heals your opponents as well.
Druids should get wildshape casting, because they are useless in wildshape with out thier casting abilities.
There are feats that every class should take to optimize thier performance you don't need to take Combat Casting just like you probably won't use spell combat in every round of an encounter.
Which is why I have said many times that this feat tax needs to be removed. In fact, multiple people have brought up this issue in this thread, and I agreed with it already. Perhaps you should learn to read.
Which really has nothing to do with my critique of your methodology. And, if you recognize that, WHY did you make the thread in order to "dispel a myth" that you yourself recognize is NOT a myth but is indeed fact?
Magus are no more Feat Taxed then Wizards, Sorcs, Clerics, Druids or any other spell caster.
As long as you don't want to play the Magus as a Magus, no.
This was done into the ground during the beta. Defensive casting for everyone is much harder now at low levels, quickly breaks even, and then scales up to "impossible to fail" at high levels. Jason said that was done on purpose -- presumably because he felt that high-level casters aren't powerful enough already (/sarcasm/).
All casters therefore have Combat Casting as a low-level feat tax, but then desperately want to retrain it after 12th level or so, because it loses all value by then -- who cares if your chance of success is 110% or 130%? A capstone ability that improves defensive casting is worthless, which Jason recognizes well enough to have solicited other suggestions.
This was done into the ground during the beta. Defensive casting is much harder now at low levels, quickly breaks even, and then scales up to "impossible to fail" at high levels. Jason said that was done on purpose -- presumably because he felt that high-level casters aren't powerful enough already (/sarcasm/).
Which is the VERY reason I critique this class using a comparison to the way Concentration worked in 3.5. They knew how and why they changed Concentration, yet they make a class that has a pigeonholed class feature that additionally solely relied on Concentration.
It's completely nonsensical.
It's completely nonsensical.
So is having a primary combatant with a 3/4 BAB progression -- notice how many people could be coaxed into playing a Marshal in 3.5 ("well, you're like this awesome general who can't fight").
Look at the non-combat casting percentage of success. Unlike the other classes if a Magus uses his main class feature he has appalling chance of loosing resources without benefit. When you fail a concentration check for defensive casting you lose the spell. At lower levels that half the time (feat tax) or worse. Then if it is an offensive spell it also has to overcome Saves (SR less so at low levels). It's 3.5 Grapple all over again.
Unless you plan to just spam 0-level at-will spells until the chances stabilized at higher (8th+ level).
Selective Channeling, a cleric doesn't loose uses if he doesn't take it.
Wildshape, looses no resources for not taking the feat.
Look at the non-combat casting percentage of success. Unlike the other classes if a Magus uses his main class feature he has appalling chance of loosing resources without benefit. When you fail a concentration check for defensive casting you lose the spell. At lower levels that half the time (feat tax) or worse. Then if it is an offensive spell it also has to overcome Saves (SR less so at low levels). It's 3.5 Grapple all over again.
Unless you plan to just spam 0-level at-will spells until the chances stabilized at higher (8th+ level).
Selective Channeling, a cleric doesn't loose uses if he doesn't take it.
Wildshape, looses no resources for not taking the feat.
You are assuming that he would not be combat casting anyway. Truth is, there is a high likelyhood that he will be. If he is, getting the full attack as a bonus is worthwhile. If he is not, does he need the full attack? Probably not. He will be casting as normal and have the same 100% success rate as everyone else.
chance of loosing resources without benefit.
Loose (/luess/) = unbind, to set free.
Lose (/looz/) = fail to retain.
|
Of course, even if you include Combat Casting, you are arguing a 50% success rate for succeeding at what the class is designed to do is a desirable result. And in doing so you ignore that offensive spells themselves have success or failure conditions which are additionally hampered by the class' low casting stat.
Just on that thought, no one questions a fighter, who is meant to fight, has a limited success factor with his primary ability, especially a TWF which this compares best with.
Just on that thought, no one questions a fighter, who is meant to fight, has a limited success factor with his primary ability, especially a TWF which this compares best with.
Of course, even if you include Combat Casting, you are arguing a 50% success rate for succeeding at what the class is designed to do is a desirable result. And in doing so you ignore that offensive spells themselves have success or failure conditions which are additionally hampered by the class' low casting stat.
TWF is a feat tree. There is no class that is literally designed around two-weapon fighting - even the Ranger, it just adopts the feat-tree for free.
A Fighter does not have any active class defining abilities. They are all passive. So if a Fighter chooses to lower his chance to hit, that's his own thing. Another Fighter could choose not to do that by working itself such that it looks nothing like the other Fighter. Every Magus, every single one, is based around melee-casting and thus every single one that decides not to eschew the class defining ability is penalized for doing so.Also, at no point in your ridiculous counter argument did you actually provide a counter argument to what I said. All the harping on whether or not Spell Combat is gimped IGNORES that offensive spells have their own conditions for failing. Spell Combat is not like Two-Weapon Fighting. It is like giving you Astral Two-Weapon Fighting - an imaginary class ability where you get a second attack, but the weapon is blinking and might not even be there when you swing it(!) therefore giving you a 50% chance to not even get to miss with the attack.
Magus are no more Feat Taxed then Wizards, Sorcs, Clerics, Druids or any other spell caster.
By your logic Clerics should automaticly get selective channeling, because channel is useless if it heals your opponents as well.
Druids should get wildshape casting, because they are useless in wildshape with out thier casting abilities.
There are feats that every class should take to optimize thier performance you don't need to take Combat Casting just like you probably won't use spell combat in every round of an encounter.
This is a good point. Furthermore, the Magus gets a number of bonus feats over the course of the 20 levels. I reckon it's fine as it is.
|
|
The chances stabilize far sooner.
0 level spells
lvl 1 dc 15 make the check on a 11
lvl 2 dc 15 or 17 make the check on a 10/12 or better
lvl 3 dc 15 or 17 make a check on a 9/11
lvl 4 dc 15 or 17 make a check on 8/10
lvl 5 dc 15/17 make a check on 7/9
lvl 6 dc 15/17 make a check on 6/8
lvl 7 dc 15/17 make a check on 5/7
lvl 8 dc 15/17 make a check on 4/6
lvl 9 dc 15/17 make a check on 3/5
lvl 10 dc 15/17 make a check on 2/4
lvl 11 dc 15/17 make a check on 1/3
lvl 12 dc 15/17 make a check on 0/2
lvl 13 dc 15/17 make a check on 0/1
1st level spells
lvl 1 dc 17 make the check on a 13
lvl 2 dc 17/19 make the check on a 12/14
lvl 3 dc 17/19 make the check on a 11/13
lvl 4 dc 17/19 make the check on a 10/12
lvl 5 dc 17/19 make the check on a 9/11
lvl 6 dc 17/19 make the check on a 8/10
2nd level Spells
lvl 4 dc 19/21 make the check on a 12/14
lvl 5 dc 19/21 make the check on a 11/13
lvl 6 dc 19/21 make the check on a 10/12
lvl 7 dc 19/21 make the check on a 9/11
lvl 8 dc 19/21 make the check on a 8/10
3rd level Spells
lvl 7 dc 21/23 make the check on a 11/13
lvl 8 dc 21/23 make the check on a 10/12
lvl 9 dc 21/23 make the check on a 9/11
lvl 10 dc 21/23 make the check on a 8/10
4th level spells
lvl 10 dc 23/25 make the check on a 10/12
lvl 11 dc 23/25 make the check on a 9/11
lvl 12 dc 23/25 make the check on a 8/10
5th level spells
lvl 13 dc 25/27 make the check on a 9/11
lvl 14 dc 25/27 make the check on a 8/10
6th level spells
lvl 16 dc 27/29 make the check on a 8/10
On average you will roll 10 or higher on a d20 with a 1 in 50 chance of getting an exact result.
Getting rid of the penalty is a bad idea and by bad idea I mean a really bad idea as the penalty is there for balance purposes.
I would suggest the following things.
1. If you are using a light weapon the penalty is reduced to -2 to hit -0 to concentration checks.
2. The concentrate Arcana should be a number of times per day equal to your intelligence modifier.
3. Allow for people to not cast on the defensive for taking attacks of oppertunity (Personally I think its moronic except in the most favorable of situations given at higher levels you will get pasted in melee for attempting this)
Those three although the 3rd will probably cause more lost spells then casting on the defensive things would solve the problem at lower levels...
So here is my problem with it, and I will use the 65% at 5th level that you presented in the table and an opponent with an AC of 20. So if you use Spell Combat you lose your spell on a 7 or less on a d20. I am going to give him a +9 to hit (which pretty much a best case scenario). So he misses with his attack on a 14 or less. That means on 13 out of 20 rounds the spell goes off, and 6 out of 20 rounds you hit with your weapon. Now the opponent gets a save or you need to make a ranged touch on most of the spells. For this case I will assume scorching ray, so that is ranged touch and we will give the opponent a touch AC of 12. So at a +5 ranged touch you miss on a 6 or lower. so with that 30% of the time your attack hits and 46% of the time your spell hits. so 14% of the time they both hit, 16% of the time only the sword hits 32% of the time the spell only hits, and 38% of the time the Magus does nothing.
EDIT: Exact percents
13.65% both work
16.35% attack only
31.85% spell only
38.15% neither work
This was done into the ground during the beta. Defensive casting for everyone is much harder now at low levels, quickly breaks even, and then scales up to "impossible to fail" at high levels. Jason said that was done on purpose -- presumably because he felt that high-level casters aren't powerful enough already (/sarcasm/).
All casters therefore have Combat Casting as a low-level feat tax, but then desperately want to retrain it after 12th level or so, because it loses all value by then -- who cares if your chance of success is 110% or 130%? A capstone ability that improves defensive casting is worthless, which Jason recognizes well enough to have solicited other suggestions.
I'm pretty sure it's not all casters. A wizard can go his entire career without entering melee if he does it properly. I wouldn't call it a feat tax because it's not a necessity, like it is for the magus.
|
I'm pretty sure it's not all casters. A wizard can go his entire career without entering melee if he does it properly. I wouldn't call it a feat tax because it's not a necessity, like it is for the magus.This was done into the ground during the beta. Defensive casting for everyone is much harder now at low levels, quickly breaks even, and then scales up to "impossible to fail" at high levels. Jason said that was done on purpose -- presumably because he felt that high-level casters aren't powerful enough already (/sarcasm/).
All casters therefore have Combat Casting as a low-level feat tax, but then desperately want to retrain it after 12th level or so, because it loses all value by then -- who cares if your chance of success is 110% or 130%? A capstone ability that improves defensive casting is worthless, which Jason recognizes well enough to have solicited other suggestions.
Yeah, I have never taken combat casting with a character because I saw it was pointless. You have to play your character intelligently to not provoke, but the number of times my casters have had to attempt to cast defensively can be counted on one hand...in over two years of twice or thrice weekly play.
Playing a magus would be a different story.
|
|
Actually they can't any DM with half a brain who wants to make a fight challenging will have thier monsters do the smart thing bypass the fighters and go straight for the casters. I actually spend 3/4s of my fights in melee while playing a caster as a 10th level sorc I was almost killed by a Spear wielding Barbarian Kobold it did almost 80 points of damage when it critted. Don't even get me started about the harpy monks with stunning fist. The only time I don't end up in melee is when we are facing ranged attackers or spellcasters. (I love my Shield Fighter Cohort)
Combat casting isn't a necessity actually it becomes pretty much a waste of space at higher levels, but it does guarantee you can effectively use spell combat. Its one of those feats you don't want to take, but you take anyone and then beg to get rid of past 8th level.
First you have to understand statistically you will on average roll a 10.5 on a d20 that means you are more likely to get a roll of 10 or higher and of course you aren't factoring in buffs or magical items. My chart is based on a 16 intelligence and no combat casting or traits to improve concentration checks. So your percentage of failure is actually a lot lower then you would think.
The other people are not looking at the future when the class really gets into its own it really is an unstoppable juggernaut that I don't want to fight.
Currently the Major issues are:
1. Spellstrike sucks for adding additonal damage
2. It has to many swift action abilities and most of them suck
3. Its abilities don't synergize well to make it more effective.
4. Its capstone is a waste of space.
5. Its spell list is incomplete and is missing anything to seperate it from being a Wizard/fighter with a limited spell list.
Spell Combat doesn't even enter on to the top 5 in terms of an issue.
I think the OPs post proves the exact opposite of what he wanted it to prove.
He's shown that if you burn all your stats on Int and focus on Concentration checks, you still have an unacceptable risk of failing that check each time for half your career (and considering that most games don't make it past 10th level.... well, probably your whole career).
So this shows that if you don't focus on making Concentration checks and ditch the decent Str, Dex, and Con you need to do what the class is supposed to do like melee combat, your Concentration checks are even worse.
A character that puts his stats into Dex, Con, Str and does the same with his magic items above and beyond the magic sword and armor he needs is not going to be making those Concentration checks often enough to want to.
This means the class is either going to be played in such a way that Concentration checks are not made (by playing as a pure caster or pure fighting guy), or people are going to focus the character so it's not good at the things it's supposed to be good at (by focusing purely on Int and not having the stats and equipment to survive melee).
I think there is a simple fix to spell combat actually: If you fail your concentration check you don't take the -4 to your attack. So if you want to attack and cast a spell make your Concentration check if it succeeds proceed as now (i.e. cast spell or attack) if you fail you lose the spell but you can still attack and not at the -4.
New Percentages:
13.65% both work
23.35% attack only
31.85% spell only
31.15% neither work
So here is my problem with it, and I will use the 65% at 5th level that you presented in the table and an opponent with an AC of 20. So if you use Spell Combat you lose your spell on a 7 or less on a d20. I am going to give him a +9 to hit (which pretty much a best case scenario). So he misses with his attack on a 14 or less. That means on 13 out of 20 rounds the spell goes off, and 6 out of 20 rounds you hit with your weapon. Now the opponent gets a save or you need to make a ranged touch on most of the spells. For this case I will assume scorching ray, so that is ranged touch and we will give the opponent a touch AC of 12. So at a +5 ranged touch you miss on a 6 or lower. so with that 30% of the time your attack hits and 46% of the time your spell hits. so 14% of the time they both hit, 16% of the time only the sword hits 32% of the time the spell only hits, and 38% of the time the Magus does nothing.
EDIT: Exact percents
13.65% both work
16.35% attack only
31.85% spell only
38.15% neither work
+9 at level 5 is about the minimum I can see. +3 str, +3 level, +2 weapon, +1 arcane bond. Add in any other bonuses that you can get from allies (like bard), flanking, weapon focus, str boosting item, and you can be up in the +15 range before casting a spell.
Why are you assuming that the magus would be casting an attack spell? At level 5, you have so many better options than scorching ray. Spell Combat is perfect for allowing you to buff or debuff while fighting. Enlarge Person and Grease are great 1st level spells for this. At 2nd you have Mirror image, Web, Blur, Bull's Strength. 3rd you get Haste, Slow, and Displacement.
Finally, compare those numbers to if you just attacked or cast a spell. Using your +9 to hit, you have a 50% chance to hit or a 52.5% chance to get your scorching ray. This way, you have a 61.85% chance of getting something, AND also the potential to get both. In fact, your scorching ray only goes down 7%, but you gain a 30% chance to deal weapon damage as well.
Actually they can't any DM with half a brain who wants to make a fight challenging will have thier monsters do the smart thing bypass the fighters and go straight for the casters. I actually spend 3/4s of my fights in melee while playing a caster as a 10th level sorc I was almost killed by a Spear wielding Barbarian Kobold it did almost 80 points of damage when it critted. Don't even get me started about the harpy monks with stunning fist. The only time I don't end up in melee is when we are facing ranged attackers or spellcasters. (I love my Shield Fighter Cohort)
5 foot step solves most issues.
Second the right buffs solve the second. Mirror Image means that 80 damage didn't hurt 7/8 times (1/8 you are hit).
I think the OPs post proves the exact opposite of what he wanted it to prove.
He's shown that if you burn all your stats on Int and focus on Concentration checks, you still have an unacceptable risk of failing that check each time for half your career (and considering that most games don't make it past 10th level.... well, probably your whole career).
So this shows that if you don't focus on making Concentration checks and ditch the decent Str, Dex, and Con you need to do what the class is supposed to do like melee combat, your Concentration checks are even worse.
A character that puts his stats into Dex, Con, Str and does the same with his magic items above and beyond the magic sword and armor he needs is not going to be making those Concentration checks often enough to want to.
This means the class is either going to be played in such a way that Concentration checks are not made (by playing as a pure caster or pure fighting guy), or people are going to focus the character so it's not good at the things it's supposed to be good at (by focusing purely on Int and not having the stats and equipment to survive melee).
I burnt pretty much the minimum I could ever see anyone taking this class doing to get stats. Its a pretty standard melee bard. This character build can be made on a 15 point buy trivially, without even prioritizing int, as I have shown. The levels I gave int items are well after he would have already picked up strength boosting items, and it is well within is wbl to have both, except perhaps the level 5 one which ould be moved to 6. In fact, I would be more supprized if they did not have these items at these levels, even focusing on str, dex, and con. I burnt 1 feat, which I have called out multiple times is a feat tax that should be removed.
What you see as an unacceptable risk of failure I see as a minor loss of efficiency. And I do mean minor. If your GM isn't making you cast defensively already, he is doing something wrong.
I think the OPs post proves the exact opposite of what he wanted it to prove.
He's shown that if you burn all your stats on Int and focus on Concentration checks, you still have an unacceptable risk of failing that check each time for half your career (and considering that most games don't make it past 10th level.... well, probably your whole career).
So this shows that if you don't focus on making Concentration checks and ditch the decent Str, Dex, and Con you need to do what the class is supposed to do like melee combat, your Concentration checks are even worse.
A character that puts his stats into Dex, Con, Str and does the same with his magic items above and beyond the magic sword and armor he needs is not going to be making those Concentration checks often enough to want to.
This means the class is either going to be played in such a way that Concentration checks are not made (by playing as a pure caster or pure fighting guy), or people are going to focus the character so it's not good at the things it's supposed to be good at (by focusing purely on Int and not having the stats and equipment to survive melee).
I burnt pretty much the minimum I could ever see anyone taking this class doing to get stats. Its a pretty standard melee bard. This character build can be made on a 15 point buy trivially, without even prioritizing int, as I have shown. The levels I gave int items are well after he would have already picked up strength boosting items, and it is well within is wbl to have both, except perhaps the level 5 one which ould be moved to 6. In fact, I would be more supprized if they did not have these items at these levels, even focusing on str, dex, and con. I burnt 1 feat, which I have called out multiple times is a feat tax that should be removed.
What you see as an unacceptable risk of failure I see as a minor loss of efficiency. And I do mean minor. If your GM isn't making you cast defensively already, he is doing something wrong.
So here is my problem with it, and I will use the 65% at 5th level that you presented in the table and an opponent with an AC of 20. So if you use Spell Combat you lose your spell on a 7 or less on a d20. I am going to give him a +9 to hit (which pretty much a best case scenario). So he misses with his attack on a 14 or less. That means on 13 out of 20 rounds the spell goes off, and 6 out of 20 rounds you hit with your weapon. Now the opponent gets a save or you need to make a ranged touch on most of the spells. For this case I will assume scorching ray, so that is ranged touch and we will give the opponent a touch AC of 12. So at a +5 ranged touch you miss on a 6 or lower. so with that 30% of the time your attack hits and 46% of the time your spell hits. so 14% of the time they both hit, 16% of the time only the sword hits 32% of the time the spell only hits, and 38% of the time the Magus does nothing.
EDIT: Exact percents
13.65% both work
16.35% attack only
31.85% spell only
38.15% neither work+9 at level 5 is about the minimum I can see. +3 str, +3 level, +2 weapon, +1 arcane bond. Add in any other bonuses that you can get from allies (like bard), flanking, weapon focus, str boosting item, and you can be up in the +15 range before casting a spell.
Why are you assuming that the magus would be casting an attack spell? At level 5, you have so many better options than scorching ray. Spell Combat is perfect for allowing you to buff or debuff while fighting. Enlarge Person and Grease are great 1st level spells for this. At 2nd you have Mirror image, Web, Blur, Bull's Strength. 3rd you get Haste, Slow, and Displacement.
Finally, compare those numbers to if you just attacked or cast a spell. Using your +9 to hit, you have a 50% chance to hit or a 52.5% chance to get your scorching ray. This way, you have a 61.85% chance of getting something, AND also the potential to get both. In fact, your scorching ray only goes down 7%, but you gain a 30% chance to deal weapon...
First off is he assumption that Int would be the high stat and on 20 point buy I had him with a 15 strength. But if we took him down to a 16 Int then you could have a 16 Str. I also was assuming +2 armor over a +2 weapon, otherwise you are getting hit 5% more and then good luck with the Concentration checks.
But even going with your numbers we have:
13.65% both work
23.35% attack only
31.85% spell only
31.15% neither work
EDIT: And if you say if you fail the Concentration check you don't take the -4
13.65% both work
30.35% attack only
31.85% spell only
24.15% neither work
|
|
Yes, but not always the same story.
Playing a magus would be a different story.
I think you're getting some sort of vibe from my post that wasn't there. I said that it's pretty usual for me that a full caster can go most of their career while only making a couple of defensive casting concentration checks. With the magus, this would be different. They wouldn't have to make such checks every round. Hell, they don't have enough spells to do that. But I don't think it's safe to assume they only need to make one or two defensive casting checks per character level.
With full casters, I average less than one defensive casting check per level, personally.
So, the time when the low level magus isn't pre-buffing or running the risk of a 20%-30% chance of losing his spell for the round, what is he doing in combat? Attacking with a one handed weapon? Providing flanking for the rogue?
The difficulty in creating the mechanic for casting and attacking in the same round should, I think, serve as a warning. This is a dangerous route to go - especially at low level. I understand why the difficulty is increased. I don't think it should be difficult to cast and attack in the same round at low level, however. I think it should be impossible. It's difficult to balance, difficult to implement, difficult to understand, difficult to play. This is the wrong route to go.
If you want to deliver attack spells through the weapon - an iconic ability that makes some sense with the class, at least - find another route to do it - heck, retool spell storing, or something. Self buffing during combat, instead of having to wait to wade in should probably be accomplished through a beefed up and useful set of combat arcana abilities - whether they pull from a rage-like pool, a ki-like pool, or have x/day uses like arcane schools.
Both of these provide a great arcane feel to a martial class. Set the casting to paladin/ranger casting (if you want, add a limited number of cantrips only for levels 1-3) and you've got your arcane warrior.
You mean metagame the fact that AoOs are not a threat to opponents with the hp to survive?Actually they can't any DM with half a brain who wants to make a fight challenging will have thier monsters do the smart thing bypass the fighters and go straight for the casters.
No. It is relatively easy to design encounters where the mage cannot get significantly out of range of melee combat. Just like one of the first objectives of most PC groups is to block the mage so he can't cast.
The stat boosters need to be readjusted if we're going to be testing based on baseline wealth values. If we use the "balanced" system advocated by the rulebook, 25% of gear would be classified "Other Magic Items". So you'd be able to get a stat booster:
+2 at 6th level (16k base wealth * .25 >= 4k)
+4 at 11th level (82k base wealth * .25 >= 16k)
+6 at 14th level (185k base wealth * .25 >= 36k)
I realize the book says:
Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items.
But since this character values armor *and* weapons, it seems justifiable that the balanced method would be the most appropriate.
|
|
No. It is relatively easy to design encounters where the mage cannot get significantly out of range of melee combat. Just like one of the first objectives of most PC groups is to block the mage so he can't cast.You mean metagame the fact that AoOs are not a threat to opponents with the hp to survive?Actually they can't any DM with half a brain who wants to make a fight challenging will have thier monsters do the smart thing bypass the fighters and go straight for the casters.
Its not metagaming if its a tactic you can use our DM will use it on us. From black tentacles to cloudkill and Solid Fog. Tanglefoot bags np, Polearms with reach on giant creatures hell yes. The last game session was a horrific example as we fought 18 9th and 10th level casters at once all Illusionists. The first attempt was very close to a wipe, the second attempt took everything we had and then we had to push it a bit farther. When the first round is suprise phantasmal killer x18 from 18 greater invised mirror imaged illusionists you know your in trouble. The first actual round of combat we were down to a Paladin a Priest and My sorc the other half of the party were killed by phantasmal killer. They promptly enervated the Paladin to death and we teleported out to reevaluate our options....
I have plenty of experience with casting on the defensive and in my characters entire career he's failed 6 times which sucks, but its part of the game. I honestly don't get people who claim I almost never have to cast on the defensive, because that just means the game isn't challenging.
Is anyone including the arcana that allows you to reroll a failed concentraion check with a +4 bonus in their calculations?
I think you can choose it at 3rd level iirc.
No, I'm not. But I don't think you need it. It loses too much functionality as you gain levels and becomes obsolete.
Not to mention that the first 5-6 levels of gaming will feel like it's a waste of time. Not too nice feeling for a signature class ability.
Hardly an issue. Sure you might not use Spell Combat much but you still have spell and can fight decently. Just spell combat at 2nd looks like a waste. I probably wouldn't both using it till 4th at the earliest.
Combat casting would give a +2 bonus instead of a penalty.
I've been trying to read all the threads on this ability, but homework has me bogged down at the moment. Has anyone proposed an alternative to the required concentration check yet?
I like the penalty to attack rolls; it mirrors the penalties for two-weapon combat quite nicely. That said, it strikes me as odd to require a magus to make a concentration check simply because he's fighting with a weapon at the same time. Melding melee combat and spellpower is what the class is all about. In a general way it makes sense for this to be difficult, but this unique form of combat is something the magus is trained specifically to accomplish.
In my opinion, don't force a magus to make a concentration check simply for using the ability. Such a character can still choose to cast defensively as normal in order to avoid an AoO, but don't penalize a magus that is able to avoid such an attack altogether. Maintain the penalty to weapon attacks, but drop the penalty to concentration checks. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be limitations to this ability, but inhibiting a magus' ability to cast in combat seems counterproductive.
Rather than limit a magus' ability to cast spells while attacking in malee, look for an alternative method of balancing the power. Maybe decrease such a character's AC until the start of the next turn, similar to a charge attack. Maybe even render such a character flat-footed until the start of the character's next turn, paired with some form of uncanny dodge-type ability as the character advances in the class. Perhaps the latter idea is a bit much, but it illustrates the idea; the ability needs some form of limitation, but I think inhibiting its effective in the current manner is the wrong approach.
I've been trying to read all the threads on this ability, but homework has me bogged down at the moment. Has anyone proposed an alternative to the required concentration check yet?
I like the penalty to attack rolls; it mirrors the penalties for two-weapon combat quite nicely. That said, it strikes me as odd to require a magus to make a concentration check simply because he's fighting with a weapon at the same time. Melding melee combat and spellpower is what the class is all about. In a general way it makes sense for this to be difficult, but this unique form of combat is something the magus is trained specifically to accomplish.
In my opinion, don't force a magus to make a concentration check simply for using the ability. Such a character can still choose to cast defensively as normal in order to avoid an AoO, but don't penalize a magus that is able to avoid such an attack altogether. Maintain the penalty to weapon attacks, but drop the penalty to concentration checks. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be limitations to this ability, but inhibiting a magus' ability to cast in combat seems counterproductive.
Rather than limit a magus' ability to cast spells while attacking in malee, look for an alternative method of balancing the power. Maybe decrease such a character's AC until the start of the next turn, similar to a charge attack. Maybe even render such a character flat-footed until the start of the character's next turn, paired with some form of uncanny dodge-type ability as the character advances in the class. Perhaps the latter idea is a bit much, but it illustrates the idea; the ability needs some form of limitation, but I think inhibiting its effective in the current manner is the wrong approach.
I think the concentration check should not be required. There are too many ways to be able to make a full attack but not threatened for casting. I think it should instead be worded in such a way that the concentration check is optional, but any concentration checks made are at -2. I do not think that the -2 is such a penalty that it will prevent someone from using this power.