|
And what is stopping the Magus from using the Still Spell Feat to cast while wielding a two-handed weapon and attack in the same round? Developer fiat.So can a magus, you just do it the same way a wizard does instead of as part of your full round attack.But you know what a wizard can do? Still a spell and cast it however he wants. Wielding a weapon one-handed? Two-handed? Tied and hanging upside down? Sure, go ahead!Also, doesn't anything think it's ridiculous that wizards can TRY to cast a spell in heavy armor and hope to make it, but a magus CAN'T EVEN TRY to cast a spell unless he has a free hand?
Are we in 1980?
Yes he can... by casting JUST AS A WIZARD DOES... with arcane spell failure, and being restricted to that ONE action for the round.
You seem to forget that what a Wizard CAN'T HOPE TO DO AT ALL is cast a spell and engage in melee combat in the same action phase. That's what defines the magus, the epitome of sword and spell combat.
Yup, a decision by the game designers that you can't. For the record, I actually agree that if spells have been stilled/verbal only then you should be able to cast them while wielding a two handed weapon. Then you'll see some player carrying eight metamagic still spell rods, but I'm not even worried about that, goes to my "don't game with a&+#&@$s" clause. I was just pointing out that you were saying things that weren't correct (one was intentional that I didn't get and the other is what we're talking about right now).
However I don't have a problem with spell combat restricting you to a one handed weapon in order to cast spells with somatic components. In fact I think it makes sense both for the class and for the established way in which arcane magic works.
Pigeonholing a class is a terribly bad decision.
|
|
Pigeonholing a class is a terribly bad decision.
The class isn't pidgeonholed, it's missing one thing effectively, it can still do that same thing. It just can't do it with its primary class feature. Same way you can't flurry with a greatsword or longbow. A monk can still choose to wield a greatsword or longbow, but it's a suboptimal choice and can't work with a class feature. You have the same thing here. A magus can wield a greatsword or a longbow, but he looses on one class feature. I fail to see how he's pidgeonholed. There are a wealth of one handed weapons that play differently and encompass a range of fighting styles.
Pigeonholing a class is a terribly bad decision.The class isn't pidgeonholed, it's missing one thing effectively, it can still do that same thing. It just can't do it with its primary class feature.
A Paladin is still a Paladin; he just can't smite without a two-handed weapon.
A Rogue is still a Rogue; he just can't Sneak Attack without a light weapon.|
|
Pigeonholing a class is a terribly bad decision.The class isn't pidgeonholed, it's missing one thing effectively, it can still do that same thing. It just can't do it with its primary class feature.A Paladin is still a Paladin; he just can't smite without a two-handed weapon.
A Rogue is still a Rogue; he just can't Sneak Attack without a light weapon.
Um a rogue can't sneak attack if he isn't flanking or sneaking where's your thread I don't want to be pidgeonholed into playing a flankbuddy, I want to be able to full attack while not flanking out in the open.
A Paladin can't Smite a non-evil character where's your thread saying I don't want to be pidgeonholed into only smiting evil creatures, I want to smite golems.
A monk can't flurry with a greatsword. Classes put restrictions on what you can and can't do with features, it isn't pidgeonholing.
I can build three magus off the top of my head that play very differently with the class as provided, there are still a wealth of different builds available within one handed weapons. If they allow the ability to work with non-somatic spells like we both agree they should, then I could build even more. So no this class isn't pidgeonholed.
|
|
What I think Cartigen is getting at is it is the only class that gives you automatic use of 3/4 of the games weapons then gives a primary ability that eliminates most of them.
Well that's a different story and an argument I have less problem with people making.
It does seem strange to give him proficiencies he can't effectively use.
|
And what is stopping the Magus from using the Still Spell Feat to cast while wielding a two-handed weapon and attack in the same round? Developer fiat.
Your statement here is both correct and incomplete. Yes it is developer fiat, presumably in the interests of game balance.
Do I believe that a Feat or Magus Arcana that allows the use of two-handed weapons would be a good idea? Yes.
Is it anymore pigeon-holing to say that a Fight who wants to wield a whip must spend a feat on it is pigeon-holing? No.
Not necessarily to Cartigan:
I'm sick of seeing people say that Maguses are restricted to high-crit range weapons, based on the current design. People should pick builds that seem fun to them or, god-forbid, make a character not an optimised set of stats and equipment. This is called ROLE-playing not ROLL-playing. I am so sick and tired of it all being, this idea sux because its dps is too low or whatever. Seriously, sometimes I miss the totally not balanced nature of AD&D 2nd edition. It caused people to make choices driven more by the character idea than the dps or other crap. At least that was my experience. We focused on having fun and being creative with our builds and making a character who had personality and was fun to play.
Damn, now I sound like some old fart.
Point is, it doesn't need to be about optimised builds and perfect balance. It needs to be about fun, or else why the hell are we doing this.
Graywulfe
A monk can't flurry with a greatsword. Classes put restrictions on what you can and can't do with features, it isn't pidgeonholing.
They also aren't proficient with a greatsword. They are proficient with all weapons they can flurry with.
I can build three magus off the top of my head that play very differently with the class as provided, there are still a wealth of different builds available within one handed weapons.
You do that then.
I'm sick of seeing people say that Maguses are restricted to high-crit range weapons, based on the current design. People should pick builds that seem fun to them or, god-forbid, make a character not an optimised set of stats and equipment.
You know what I find fun? Characters who can effectively engage in combat and give a wide range of choices for creating them.
This is called ROLE-playing not ROLL-playing.
You know I call this game? The "I am sick of pretentious roleplayers telling me what this game is and isn't" game.
You could be Bob the Bleedin' Idiot commoner who would get killed in all of 5 seconds by a goblin and still be an effective roleplayer. So yes, this is a "roleplaying" game but the "roll"-playing is the important part.
|
The Magus grants the class the unique ability to cast a spell while fighting as part of a full round action without the need for quicken spell to turn the spell into a swift action or a Still spell to avoid the empty hand dependancy This is effectively 2 effects.Except you can NEVER not only use one hand. If you Still all your spells, you can STILL not use Spell Combat except with one-handed weapons.
Exactly! Spell Combat is the ability to use one handed or light weapons only. Its not "pretending" to be the still spell feat.
Dont get me wrong, I agree there needs to be "Other" options for the class and the Spell Combat ability as a class defining ability is "pigeon-holed" as you like to call it.
My concern is that, not only is the class handicapped with his choice of weapons, hes also handicapped in his spell choice AND spell level (6th max) making metamagic feats less appealing to a class that would benefit greatly from them. The strength in the class should be his focus on weilding a weapon and a spell at the same time. he should have far greater access to damaging spells to compensate for the loss of 2 handed weapons.
The book also needs to consider new wizard sorcerer spells that are designed for the magus in mind but that would benefit any other melee casters too.
Someone also mentioned something about crit multipliers and increased threat range and a magus could sure use a way to increase the potential crits on spells he casts while using spell combat.
As a whole the class falls short in every category it tries to emulate - be that the role of the fighter or the role of the mage. compared alongside the rogue or bard and again the class ends up falling short by not covering enough areas as the others do. yes he may do more damage than a bard or rogue but he lacks the skills to fill that roll in a party. The magus is yet another "5th-Wheel" that wont find his way into the average party makeup.
Exactly! Spell Combat is the ability to use one handed or light weapons only. Its not "pretending" to be the still spell feat.The Magus grants the class the unique ability to cast a spell while fighting as part of a full round action without the need for quicken spell to turn the spell into a swift action or a Still spell to avoid the empty hand dependancy This is effectively 2 effects.Except you can NEVER not only use one hand. If you Still all your spells, you can STILL not use Spell Combat except with one-handed weapons.
Except that's not what I said. The ability is pigeonholing for one reason - Paizo themselves (or at least Mr Buhlman) have a misunderstanding of how two-weapon fighting works and therefore tried to make this ability like TWF. But if your assumption about how it works is wrong to begin with, making abilities like it is automatically going to cause problems. And then there is the oversight on non-somatic spells that don't need a hand free to cast.
|
|
@Cartigan and Mistah Green,
Congratulations on completely side-stepping the first part of argument and attempting to marginalize me by focusing on tiny points and blowing them out of proportion.
Based on your posts I can extrapolate that you believe in zero and infinity and nothing in between. My point being that you took my statement that "it doesn't have to be about optimization to be fun" and turned it into "If you play effective character's you are doing it wrong." That is not what I was saying.
I enjoy playing effective characters, I also enjoy suboptimal characters, but really what I enjoy playing is characters.
Cartigan you are right I was unfair to a point in how I posted, play the game anyway you want. But don't call me an idiot for not playing your way. I have yet to find a post saying that people who play effective characters are doing it wrong. However I do find hundreds of posts in a week telling me I am an idiot for not playing optimized characters. So excuse me if I feel a little more justified in being offended.
Mistah Green your post makes no sense to me. Literally I feel like you skipped words and entire sentences as I find numerous insults against me and no connecting threads to what I said or even to other parts of you post.
Graywulfe
No one called you an idiot. And you didn't say anyone was doing it wrong. You just strongly implied your way was the only right way.
This is called ROLE-playing not ROLL-playing.
Yeah, that's totally not put forward in a confrontational or holier-than-thou manner.
You know what I see all over the boards? People saying that same thing over and over and belittling people who want to play effective characters instead of some "proper" form of roleplaying. Which you can do with ANY type of character, optimized or unoptimized. And what's WORST of all here is you are the one claiming "I'm a victim!" for being supposedly harassed about how you want to play varied characters while defending this class which specifically LIMITS how you can play the character.
|
|
No one called you an idiot. And you didn't say anyone was doing it wrong. You just strongly implied your way was the only right way.
This is called ROLE-playing not ROLL-playing.Yeah, that's totally not put forward in a confrontational or holier-than-thou manner.
You know what I see all over the boards? People saying that same thing over and over and belittling people who want to play effective characters instead of some "proper" form of roleplaying. Which you can do with ANY type of character, effective or ineffective.
I guess we all see things through a lens defined by our expectations.
Some of the best stories I know of RPG sessions are ones where little to no dice rolling was involved.
(ex when confronted with the obstacle of getting into town past the guards. "I cast an illusion of myself riding backwards into town on a pink elephant. No one will believe what they are seeing and if they do they won't want to admit it. And besides it doesn't matter he is leaving town anyways." Is it goofy sure but it worked and everyone at the table had fun. I have other examples, but I don't want to bog this thread down with further threadjack.)
I do feel strongly that if people want to play a game about combat then miniature war-gaming and WOW are a more appropriate venue. That said if you are having fun and everyone playing with you is having fun, then you are doing it right.
Graywulfe
I do feel strongly that if people want to play a game about combat then miniature war-gaming and WOW are a more appropriate venue.
And I feel equally strongly that people who think combat is not important to the game and character optimizers should be drawn and quartered as "ruining their experience" should go play Exalted.
|
|
And I feel equally strongly that people who think combat is not important to the game and character optimizers should be drawn and quartered as "ruining their experience" should go play Exalted.
Point one: I never stated that. But I think that you understood that and were simply asserting your point as I have been, so fair enough.
What particular problem do you have with Exalted? I am particularly curious as I enjoy Exalted and run a game of it that involves a fairy equal mix of combat, socializing, and mental puzzles.
Again not even sure what the hell Mistah Green is talking about. Other than I know that Predator's Taint is not a mechanic in Exalted, but is in fact a mechanic in Vampire: the Requiem, also a game a run and enjoy.
Graywulfe
EDIT: y'know what, I just realized I have let myself be baited by Mistah Green. As of this post I'm gonna stop the off-topic on this thread.
|
|
Back on topic, I believe that the developers reason for the decision was game balance. I also believe that as written it was a further hindrance to a class that was suffering from a lot of hindrances. As a starting point in what was shown to us I don't think that is a bad thing, better to start out underpowered and have stuff added to bring it up to par, than to have it be overpowered and have people griping because when you removed stuff to bring it on par you removed their favorite item. I really don't think we can make any more effective discussion on that front until we see the revised version that will come out later in the playtest. After all even Jason has posted recognizing that the Magus needed more.
On the other front, I still feel very strongly that you don't need to make the most optimal choice to make an effective choice. Just because the critical range is applied doesn't mean that the only effective build with a Magus will involve high-crit weapons. Hell on average I only crit a couple of times per session. Only some characters are optimized for crits. Even then the best crit range I can think of that doesn't break stacking rules is 15-20, and you sill have to confirm.
Graywulfe
|
|
Just because the critical range is applied doesn't mean that the only effective build with a Magus will involve high-crit weapons.
Graywulfe
The weapons in this game are balanced along certain lines. Those factors include the threat range and crit multiplier. These get weighed in by their expected extra damages over time. To whit a x4 multiplier adds 3 extra damages on each 20, while an 18-20 x2 weapon does the same thing by adding a total of 3 extra damages just spread out over an 18,19, and 20.
Wider threat ranges favor the expected winner while higher multipliers favor the underdog. So high crit weapons already have an extra bit to sling here.
Paizo added in critical feats that don't take into account the multiplier tied to them (which I consider a design mistake) further favoring high crit range weapons mainly for higher level fighters.
That they elected to have spellstrike use the crit range but not multiplier of the weapon further exacerbates this disparity.
What I haven't found the answer for is if a normal wizard delivered a touch spell via unarmed strike and happened to have improved crit unarmed strike would the touch spell get the extra threat range? Likewise would it inherit the multiplier should it somehow be increased?
If anything I would accept this as the rules already in place, rather than making a special exception to spellstrike and the magus class.
As to people 'play whatever they want' that's true, it's just when talking about class design that you really have to see what the mechanics are encouraging and what they are punishing.
-James
I get what you are saying and I agree with your last sentence. I even hope that they will go all or nothing with weapon crit values for spellstrike. I however don't see it as such a penalizing choice to choose a weapon that doesn't maximize the crit range for the current write-up of the Magus.
Graywulfe
PS: I'm sure when Jason is done getting the Words of Power ready for playtest he will address your question, if he can find it amid the plethora of other posts.
|
|
This is called ROLE-playing not ROLL-playing.
I dont want to offend here Graywulfe, I 100% understand where your coming from with the roleplaying / rollplaying stance, however, this is a Playtest. The sole purpose of these posts and suggestions is to find loopholes, broken mechanics, and ultimately fine tune a potentially "roll-playing" class and turn it into a balanced "role-playing" class.
The designers have obviously envisioned the magus as a duel wielder with no thought for 2-handed or ranged fighting styles that incorporate magic. as a result the class is prevented from using those styles with its core ability.
The same occured with the cavalier during playtest, although in reverse. Precision based damage to be added to challenges (my guess is to mimic the cavaliers flavour for jousts and duels), however people jumped on this extra damage and applied it to two weapon fighting which produced much more damage per round. The lack of foresight and open ended nature of precision damage made every cavalier a two-weapon fighting machine. The precision based damage was ultimately dropped in favor of adding class level to damage.
|
|
This is called ROLE-playing not ROLL-playing.I dont want to offend here Graywulfe, I 100% understand where your coming from with the roleplaying / rollplaying stance, however, this is a Playtest. The sole purpose of these posts and suggestions is to find loopholes, broken mechanics, and ultimately fine tune a potentially "roll-playing" class and turn it into a balanced "role-playing" class.
The designers have obviously envisioned the magus as a duel wielder with no thought for 2-handed or ranged fighting styles that incorporate magic. as a result the class is prevented from using those styles with its core ability.
The same occured with the cavalier during playtest, although in reverse. Precision based damage to be added to challenges (my guess is to mimic the cavaliers flavour for jousts and duels), however people jumped on this extra damage and applied it to two weapon fighting which produced much more damage per round. The lack of foresight and open ended nature of precision damage made every cavalier a two-weapon fighting machine. The precision based damage was ultimately dropped in favor of adding class level to damage.
*Points to previous posts where he acknowledged the off-topicness*