Ok, I get that some folks have an itch for a fighter/wizard that Eldritch Knight, as a prestige class, just doesn't scratch. I know people are asking for a Magus-like class, but what they're really asking for is a fix to the "gish" problem, and I think a set of feats would work just as well (and certainly more "cleanly").
For example, you could have a "cast in light armor feat" that required light armor proficiency, and, say, a BAB of +2. Medium might require +4 BAB, light armor proficiency, and the aforementioned light armor feat. Heavy might be +6 BAB, all armor proficiencies, and the "cast in medium armor" feat, etc.
It seems balanced. It would still be rather punitive for a full caster to do it (6 feats for heavy!), meaning the iconic wizard in robes is largely safe. If it really rankled, I suppose one could add "proficient in all martial weapons" as a requirement -- but I doubt that would be needed.
Likewise, the "cast+attack" schtick could be a feat or two. Let's fact it -- as it stands, it's not a particularly strong choice, and would not be at all unbalancing if granted to a full caster ("you *want* to hit someone with a sharp bit of metal? Good luck with that").
Maybe throw in a "practiced spellcaster" type feat, and you're done.
So, why, again, would we want to pollute the base class space with the Magus when the mechanics fit much more elegantly into an existing (and highly flexible) rules-framework*? I don't mean to be a smart-ass; it's a serious question.
*Of course, the same charge could be levelled against literally every base class in the Advanced Player's Guide, but that ship has sailed. :(
I got your back and agree with *. The trolls are going to eat us.
I do agree that the 'attack with one hand and cast with the other' ability does sound like something that would make a nice feat chain.
The problem with feats though is that they take a while to build up, and taking one feat chain prevents you from getting other ones for quite a while. Also, this still wouldn't solve the real problem that the magus was trying to solve: if you're trying to make a melee spellcaster hybrid out of a fighter and a wizard you have to wait almost 10 levels before the character becomes what you've been wanting to play since level 1.
Theoretically the Magus will solve that: he's good with both attack spells and melee from level 1 or 2. The bard (the closest class to the Magus' design) certainly doesn't fill this void; there's no bard architype that comes anything close what people want from a fighter/mage hybrid (mostly because he lacks evocation spells and combat feats).
Why do you care?
Ignoring the obvious retort (why do you care that I care?), I care because rules-bloat is unhealthy for a system. First, it takes resources away from non-rules projects (See the delay of World Guide -- The Inner Sea). Second, it diffuses the rules, increasing both the physical burden of transporting material and the financial burden of system "buy-in." Finally, it adds needless complexity.
For example, you could have a "cast in light armor feat" that required light armor proficiency, and, say, a BAB of +2. Medium might require +4 BAB, light armor proficiency, and the aforementioned light armor feat. Heavy might be +6 BAB, all armor proficiencies, and the "cast in medium armor" feat, etc.
Not exactly what you mean or going for, but there is always Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery.
As far as 'trolling' goes, I am not all that familiar with the term.
For example, you could have a "cast in light armor feat" that required light armor proficiency, and, say, a BAB of +2. Medium might require +4 BAB, light armor proficiency, and the aforementioned light armor feat. Heavy might be +6 BAB, all armor proficiencies, and the "cast in medium armor" feat, etc.Not exactly what you mean or going for, but there is always Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery.
Yes, but the action penalty is prohibitive, nor do those feats actually eliminate the check penalty. If we're going to add a mechanic for doing so, it should be through feats with judiciously chosen pre-reqs, not through new base classes.
As far as 'trolling' goes, I am not all that familiar with the term.
See "why do you care?" above. ;)
|
Why do you care?Ignoring the obvious retort (why do you care that I care?), I care because rules-bloat is unhealthy for a system. First, it takes resources away from non-rules projects (See the delay of World Guide -- The Inner Sea). Second, it diffuses the rules, increasing both the physical burden of transporting material and the financial burden of system "buy-in." Finally, it adds needless complexity.
If you are the DM, you can ban this book or the classes, assuming your players agree.
It doesn't matter what system or game you are running, there will be rules bloat. I was around from 2ed, and it had it. I play other pen and paper RPGs, and they've all had it.
This is why I asked why you care, because if this is your world, you and your players can control it. Just ignore the books and/or classes. All players can cherry pick (and I'm sure all do).
More choices are always good...so yay for new base classes ;)
Who don't likes them can simply play the classic ones :DSpecifically for the magus, +1 for Matrixryu. Multiclassing you need several levels for the concept to be viable.
Actually, I disagree. Choices impose externalities which must be weighed against the benefits. Limitless choice is not good design.
Why do you care?Ignoring the obvious retort (why do you care that I care?), I care because rules-bloat is unhealthy for a system. First, it takes resources away from non-rules projects (See the delay of World Guide -- The Inner Sea). Second, it diffuses the rules, increasing both the physical burden of transporting material and the financial burden of system "buy-in." Finally, it adds needless complexity.If you are the DM, you can ban this book or the classes, assuming your players agree.
It doesn't matter what system or game you are running, there will be rules bloat. I was around from 2ed, and it had it. I play other pen and paper RPGs, and they've all had it.
This is why I asked why you care, because if this is your world, you and your players can control it. Just ignore the books and/or classes. All players can cherry pick (and I'm sure all do).
Ahh; then I apologize for my accusation of trolling. It matters to me because:
1. I play Pathfinder Society (this is most of it for me).2. See #1. ;)
3. In so far as it affects my chosen game, I'm a stakeholder. It impacts the delivery of other, more desirable products. Resources are diverted to projects, that, while more profitable in the short term, arguably aren't better for the game in the long term.
4. Elegant design appeals to me. Admittedly, this is probably the least objective of my reasons.
Actually, I disagree. Choices impose externalities which must be weighed against the benefits. Limitless choice is not good design.
In theory, nearly Limitless choice is the best possible design for some games...assuming that the designers can create a system where the various choices are relatively balanced. Few can acomplish this sort of balance, but it is amazing when it is achieved.
In fact, the feeling that there are 'limitless choices' is the entire reason why I preffer tabletop roleplaying to computer rpgs. You can freely expand and modify the system so that there are more choices than before. If the designers didn't add in the magus class themselves then I could (and probably would) add in my own version of it if one of my players wanted that kind of character. I'm not going to tell him 'sorry, you have to be gimped for 10 levels if you want to play a fighter/mage'.
At least, that's how I've felt about that issue. :D So, I'm always in favor of new core classes; especially since I know the Paizo ones will probably be better designed than mine. Plus, of course, I don't always play in Pathfinder games where I'm free to add adittional options, so having more options and books to draw from makes things less painful XD
|
|
There's no such thing as rules bloat. You can limit your players to the Core Rulebook, and it's just like every other book never existed. If you or your players aren't happy with that solution, guess what? You're in the market for some new rules and you can start with as few or as many options as you would like to scratch that itch. Furthermore, fluff projects like World Guide: the Inner Sea take resources away from rulebooks to exactly the same degree that the reverse is true, and personally I would be 100% fine with no fluff books because I don't have any use for them. Published options or not, as a GM I'm going to make up all the fluff for my world, so I'd much rather see more options for rules. You know how I handle the existence of fluff books? I don't buy them. It's like they don't exist. See point A above.
Now, I agree that many of the magus class abilities could easily be feats, and frankly I think they should be, BUT making them feats doesn't solve the problem of the arcane warrior who starts and ends his or her career that way. They still have to start as a wizard or a fighter in the world of multi-classing. Not to mention, it's one of Paizo's stated goals that multi-classing not be as enticing as following the path of a base class from 1 to 20. I'm all for options to allow for cool multi-class builds, but not at the expense of single class options.
On the other hand, I also agree that thus far, magus and summoner exempted, Paizo has been incredibly conservative with their exploration into the world of new base classes. Don't get me wrong, I love the witch and oracle, and I'm warming up to the alchemist and inquisitor a lot more since the final versions came out, but of the APG classes only the summoner really breaks any new ground, and I do think one of the very best reasons to introduce a new class is to showcase some sort of ground-breaking mechanic that can't be done with any other class. I'd love to see more classes that aren't spellcasters, but aren't really fighters either (at least not in the fluff sense), but which have signature abilities unlike anything seen in the game so far. I wish Paizo would delve further into this sort of territory.
You'll notice, however, that I exempted the magus along with the summoner. I honestly think this class breaks way more ground than most of the APG classes.
There's no such thing as rules bloat. You can limit your players to the Core Rulebook, and it's just like every other book never existed. If you or your players aren't happy with that solution, guess what? You're in the market for some new rules and you can start with as few or as many options as you would like to scratch that itch. Furthermore, fluff projects like World Guide: the Inner Sea take resources away from rulebooks to exactly the same degree that the reverse is true, and personally I would be 100% fine with no fluff books because I don't have any use for them. Published options or not, as a GM I'm going to make up all the fluff for my world, so I'd much rather see more options for rules. You know how I handle the existence of fluff books? I don't buy them. It's like they don't exist. See point A above.
I'd agree, except that I play in Pathfinder Society. I don't have the luxury of ignoring new material. :(
Now, I agree that many of the magus class abilities could easily be feats, and frankly I think they should be, BUT making them feats doesn't solve the problem of the arcane warrior who starts and ends his or her career that way. They still have to start as a wizard or a fighter in the world of multi-classing. Not to mention, it's one of Paizo's stated goals that multi-classing not be as enticing as following the path of a base class from 1 to 20. I'm all for options to allow for cool multi-class builds, but not at the expense of single class options.On the other hand, I also agree that thus far, magus and summoner exempted, Paizo has been incredibly conservative with their exploration into the world of new base classes. Don't get me wrong, I love the witch and oracle, and I'm warming up to the alchemist and inquisitor a lot more since the final versions came out, but of the APG classes only the summoner really breaks any new ground, and I do think one of the very best reasons to introduce a new class is to showcase some sort of ground-breaking mechanic that can't be done with any other class.
Exactly. But in order to justify a new base class, the implementation shouldn't be one that could be accomplished just as well via feats. IMO the Magus, at least as it exists now, fails that test.
And I did find the Witch and the Oracle way too thematically similiar to the wizard and the cleric to justify either being a base class. I can see arguing for a spontaneous divine caster, if only for symmetry's sake.
To be fair, pretty much anything -short of spell-like abilities perhaps- can be implemented as a series of feats if the one in charge of creating said feats is imaginative and flexible enough. And with feat trees even more so.
To be fair, pretty much anything -short of spell-like abilities perhaps- can be implemented as a series of feats if the one in charge of creating said feats is imaginative and flexible enough. And with feat trees even more so.
Oh, absolutely. In fact, if I had my way, I'd prefer something like True20. But the core base classes were inherited, so they're grandfathered in.
On the other hand, in my opinion Paizo should restrict future base classes to concepts that can't easily be implemented as feat chains. The Magus, in particular, fails to clear that bar. YMMV. :)
Ok, I get that some folks have an itch for a fighter/wizard that Eldritch Knight, as a prestige class, just doesn't scratch. I know people are asking for a Magus-like class, but what they're really asking for is a fix to the "gish" problem, and I think a set of feats would work just as well (and certainly more "cleanly").
For example, you could have a "cast in light armor feat" that required light armor proficiency, and, say, a BAB of +2. Medium might require +4 BAB, light armor proficiency, and the aforementioned light armor feat. Heavy might be +6 BAB, all armor proficiencies, and the "cast in medium armor" feat, etc.
It seems balanced. It would still be rather punitive for a full caster to do it (6 feats for heavy!), meaning the iconic wizard in robes is largely safe. If it really rankled, I suppose one could add "proficient in all martial weapons" as a requirement -- but I doubt that would be needed.
Likewise, the "cast+attack" schtick could be a feat or two. Let's fact it -- as it stands, it's not a particularly strong choice, and would not be at all unbalancing if granted to a full caster ("you *want* to hit someone with a sharp bit of metal? Good luck with that").
Maybe throw in a "practiced spellcaster" type feat, and you're done.
So, why, again, would we want to pollute the base class space with the Magus when the mechanics fit much more elegantly into an existing (and highly flexible) rules-framework*? I don't mean to be a smart-ass; it's a serious question.
*Of course, the same charge could be levelled against literally every base class in the Advanced Player's Guide, but that ship has sailed. :(
I Agree with you. All i will say on this.
On the other hand, in my opinion Paizo should restrict future base classes to concepts that can't easily be implemented as feat chains. The Magus, in particular, fails to clear that bar. YMMV. :)
Personally, I still argue that while a few of the magus' class abilities can be converted into feats the magus class itself can't. The class is nessissary for anyone who wants to play a figher/wizard from level 1. Even if you ignore 'spell combat' every possible substitute for the magus doesn't come together until much later and has a very uneven power progression (eldritch knight) or doesn't have sufficent combat and evocation spell abilities (bard).
The best substitute for a new core class that I can think of would be a bard architype that would give the class magus like abilities...but it would have to replace all of the bard's lore, singing, and his entire spell list. That's a little extreme.
|
|
I'd agree, except that I play in Pathfinder Society. I don't have the luxury of ignoring new material. :(
You do have that luxury, though! Nobody's forcing you to buy anything beyond the Core Rulebook, and nobody's forcing you to play any classes or use any options from any other book. Rules bloat's only a time management problem. I can see someone not having time to look through every book every time they build a character, and to that person, I say: pretend those books don't exist and it'll be exactly like they don't. If you're still complaining about the existence of new books and new classes, what you're really complaining about is some sort of game balance issue, not rules bloat.
And if you think something's not balanced, that's a legitimate complaint, but assuming everything's balanced fairly well, why does it matter that other players in Pathfinder Society have more options than you? It shouldn't affect you one bit. All you need to know about is your character. Hell, even as GM, the encounters in Pathfinder Society are written to be beatable by even the strangest party composition, since you rarely wind up with a PFS table containing a wizard, a cleric, a rogue, and a fighter. It shouldn't even matter to you as a GM in Pathfinder Society that there are more rules, so long as they're all balanced. Players are responsible for knowing how their classes work, all you need to worry about are NPCs and monsters. There's no fiddling or re-balancing based on what the players are playing anyway.
I just don't see how Pathfinder Society is negatively affected in even the slightest way by the existence of more optional options.
Exactly. But in order to justify a new base class, the implementation shouldn't be one that could be accomplished just as well via feats. IMO the Magus, at least as it exists now, fails that test.
The class abilities of the magus could allll be feats and the class still couldn't be accomplished well via feats. You're talking about 6 feats to cover three of its abilities, not to mention it gets some sort of ability at every single level. This is a base class because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, even if all the arcane warrior feats imaginable existed.
And I did find the Witch and the Oracle way too thematically similiar to the wizard and the cleric to justify either being a base class. I can see arguing for a spontaneous divine caster, if only for symmetry's sake.
I'm not going to debate thematical similarities because I don't think they're relevant, though I do disagree that a generic witch is any way like a generic wizard or that a generic oracle is in any way like a generic cleric. You could build wizards that seemed witchy and vice versa, and the same could be said of oracles and clerics, but the generic concepts are all very different.
Now, what is important are the mechanical differences. Having played a witch from level 1 to level 7, I can safely say it has a really refreshing mechanical niche that differs significantly from anything the wizard can do. And it's spell list is so radically different from the wizard's as to really, really make archetype-building this class impossible.
I believe any system is going to suffer from some amount of 'rules bloat'. Even 'universal' systems add in options. Publishers got to make money you know.
That being said, I think class based systems are more susceptible. With a limited number of options, there is a higher probability of demand for something that does not quite fit into the provided options.
Why make a Magnus class? Paizo saw a demand and a way to, hopefully, translate that demand into profit. Does it detract from other products? Most likely (I did not read the link you provided, I am willing to take your word for it). I am sure Paizo evaluated their priorities and are doing what they believe is best for their business. Are they giving up long term profits for short term profits? Maybe, but you would be hard pressed to provide concrete evidence of that.
Paizo wants to sell books. As many as they can. Classes are, rightly or wrongly, seen as more 'core' than fluff books. And I think because of that, they sell more.
It is a hard pill to swallow when you are not the target demographic.
I just don't see how Pathfinder Society is negatively affected in even the slightest way by the existence of more optional options.
Really? I usually GM. There is a finite amount of information I (or anyone) can retain, yet you don't see how rules-bloat impacts the GM (which in turn directly impacts *everyone*) "in the slightest way?"
That's...interesting, but not really related to reality as I've experienced it.
I believe any system is going to suffer from some amount of 'rules bloat'. Even 'universal' systems add in options. Publishers got to make money you know.
That being said, I think class based systems are more susceptible. With a limited number of options, there is a higher probability of demand for something that does not quite fit into the provided options.
Why make a Magnus class? Paizo saw a demand and a way to, hopefully, translate that demand into profit. Does it detract from other products? Most likely (I did not read the link you provided, I am willing to take your word for it). I am sure Paizo evaluated their priorities and are doing what they believe is best for their business. Are they giving up long term profits for short term profits? Maybe, but you would be hard pressed to provide concrete evidence of that.
Paizo wants to sell books. As many as they can. Classes are, rightly or wrongly, seen as more 'core' than fluff books. And I think because of that, they sell more.
It is a hard pill to swallow when you are not the target demographic.
Paizo folks have come out and explicitly stated that (APG + GMG + World Guide) was too much; that they had bitten off more than they could chew, and so the World Guide was delayed. So yes, I'd rather have seen those resources allocated differently, which is a concern I've had since the runaway success of the Core Rulebook. The temptation to do "just one more 'crunchy' book" has got to be pretty strong.
But that's getting a little far afield. My point was, and remains: If you're going to write a new base class, please don't just package a bunch of abilities that should have been feats. That just needlessly restricts access to those abilities. Further, please make sure any new base clase is thematically distinct enough to stand on its own. Otherwise, we'll eventually end up with a "left-handed, pole-arm wielding cobbler with brown hair" base class.
At the very least I hope that the folks at Paizo, if they're as intent on going down the Magus-as-a-base-class road as they seem, ensure that the class actually solves the problem in a unique way. The playtest Magus does not do this.
That's my $.02, and I've more than said it. :-)
|
|
Really? I usually GM. There is a finite amount of information I (or anyone) can retain, yet you don't see how rules-bloat impacts the GM (which in turn directly impacts *everyone*) "in the slightest way?"
That's...interesting, but not really related to reality as I've experienced it.
I feel like you ignored the majority of my point, which directly and explicitly dealt with this already. In a home game, where the GM is custom-building encounters, I'd agree with you. If there was too much material built into the game, it would become overwhelming for the GM. In reality when it comes to Pathfinder Society, however, the encounters are pre-written and already take into account the potentially weird make-up of your party. You no more need to know how your players' characters work than your players need to know how your monsters work. As long as the players understand the rules for their characters (and they should), the GM should need no more than the most basic notion of how those characters' classes function. Frankly, players are somewhat on the honour system, but that's no different in a world with only the Core Rulebook. Or do you have everything in that book memorized?
Or do you have everything in that book memorized?
I suggest you avoid silly rhetorical questions and caricature. Of course I don't have the corebook memorized, but I've read most of it several times. I am familiar with it to a degree which I cannot match with every last supplement Paizo publishes. Further, the proliferation of sources for basic system components (like base classes) has eventually become problematic for every RPG that has ever attempted it -- EVER.
Bloat kills...just look at the bloatmage. :)
|
I looked this over tonight, and I'm not overly impressed by it at all. It's just a INT based bard that's got more weapon proficiencies and is stronger. It's also got a Fort instead of a Ref. When I first saw it, I was hoping for a Duskblade with only 5th level spells and full BAB, but of course it looks like we'll never get that.
While it's a decent class, it's not all that great. There are other classes by themself that could be better if combined correctly. Personally I found the new classes in the Advanced Players Guide to be better to play with.