Why is this the popular opinion around here? Clerics can kick the crap out of the magus, but people think that giving the magus full BAB is OMG OVARPOWERED. That's ridiculous.
Cleric shouldn't be a full caster either to be honest. It should have 3/4 th casting or low BAB. Full BAB is over powered, ya need to look at everything he does, can do and what ya can mix the full BAB with.
If your using the cleric,druid or wizard as your yard stick for class power your doing it wrong.
Cleric and Druid even after Pathfinder nerfs are probably still unbalanced classes. If class balance was the primary goal of pathfinder (not backwards compatibility) the cleric probably would've been a 1/2 BAB class and the Druid and a new War Priest class would've been 3/4 BAB progression Bard Casters.
That being said it's also clear that in the minds of the designers arcane spells (better spells, better damage caps, etc) is at least equivalent to 1/4 BAB progression thus we have the 1/2 BAB Wizard (crap weapons, no armor, crap HPs, limited skills) equivalent to the 3/4 BAB Druid and Cleric (better weapons, better armor, decent HPs, limited skills). Having a limited spell selection negates some of the advantage but it's clear that by the design of the Pathfinder (and 3.x chassis) you pay the price for having arcane spells. Granted additional clerical and druid spells negate some of that advantage but that is the basics of the design for better or for worse.
|
Unless the class(es) are severly overbalanced, i.e. destroy all encounters single-handedly, I'm not sure for me it really matters. Balance with never truely be achieved unless we only have one class that everybody plays and no options within that class.
If the Cleric and Druid are good then one would think that people would be pleased to have someone play one in their party.
S.
TOZ did you ever play 2e? They worked somewhat like that having "spheres" and maxing out at 7th level spells
I have to agree, cleric and druid need nerfed, but alas that could not happen this go around.
Some folks hated spheres, I was fine with em.
The issue is folks want to use some over powered classes to judge what the norm should be.The cleric and druid need totally rebuilt. The wizard just needs spells rebalanced and some made into full round actions.
TOZ did you ever play 2e? They worked somewhat like that having "spheres" and maxing out at 7th level spells
Well, no, not really. They worked just like they work now, except that the spheres determined what the whole spell list was. There was no spontaneous casting from a short list, nor was there anything like maintaining a spellbook. Rather, each specialty priest had a slightly different spell list. Domain spell lists took that place, more or less.
They were also really full casters. The change from 7th level max spells to 9th level, if you ask me, isn't that significant a change overall. In fact, I think it simplifies the game because you no longer have 9th level wizards spells doing the exact same thing as 7th level cleric spells like you did in 1e/2e. 1e clerics and druids truly did have full caster power.
The main difference was the nature of the spells they tossed around. Wizards had substantially more spells to choose to put in their spellbooks at most levels and much more of an offensive focus. 3e put too much magic offense in the hands of the cleric and druid - particularly the cleric.
heh your forgetting Major and minor spheres. Which limited what level you could cast. And the level difference at times that could really level things.
But it's been 11 years since I played 2e so I am a bit fuzzy on it.
heh your forgetting Major and minor spheres. Which limited what level you could cast. And the level difference at times that could really level things.
But it's been 11 years since I played 2e so I am a bit fuzzy on it.
That effect was actually quite minor and served mainly to pad out the spell lists of the lower level spells without necessarily adding to the list for higher level spells. Ultimately, the spheres were designed to produce the cleric as envisioned in 1e (which it did fairly well), foster the development of specialty priests who could get a hodge-podge of spells drawing from what were effectively cleric and druid lists, and the druid spell list that was kind of weird and needed a few edits to put the druid back on schedule.
The separation of the cleric and druid spell lists again in 3e was, I believe, an acknowledgment that the unified modular system of divine magic didn't go as well as intended and that people really wanted their distinct druid back.
Getting back to the topic at hand...
Why do Jason Bulmahn et al. think that full BAB + partial spells is overpowered but 3/4 BAB + full spells is acceptable? I'm going to wager it's incompetence.
Getting back to the topic at hand...
Why do Jason Bulmahn et al. think that full BAB + partial spells is overpowered but 3/4 BAB + full spells is acceptable? I'm going to wager it's incompetence.
That's kind of a jerk posting. No, not kind of. It is a jerk posting.
I am gonna wager its not using the most over powered classes in the game as a yard stick.
And yes Bill it was a jerk posting.
|
|
Why do Jason Bulmahn et al. think that full BAB + partial spells is overpowered but 3/4 BAB + full spells is acceptable? I'm going to wager it's incompetence.
Not even remotely imcomptence. Possilby too much of a conservative mindset maybe. With a need to balance things sometimes way too much imo. Yet do not call them imcompetent. That is a very personal attack
1e/2e Divine Casters had various other limitations that were largely removed in 3.x. Some of those limitations were removed for good reasons and others were provided to provide incentive to play the new versions of the classes.
The 1e/2e clerical spell list was generally less useful for self-buffing (there was no equivalent to the holy trinity for instance). Even the best clerical blast spells in 1e flame strike and blade barrier were generally way behind arcane equivalents.
No Domain Spells, specialty priests were nice but they didn't have access to arcane spells.
No easy access to healing wands, this change was a dramatic shift as no longer was the cleric the dreaded healbot. He could use the low cost Wand of CLW for virtually all his party's healing needs. This meant that rather than 50%+ of his daily spell selection going towards healing we have a system where clerics might use a heal or two to recover but generally rely on wands and channels.
So the 3.x Cleric got to keep his old secondary martial character gimmick but was now almost the equivalent of the wizard in terms of strength and utility. This was one of the key features dooming 3.x class and party balance (the others being bad Save DC math, and really crap polymorph/wildshaping rules). Pathfinder as 3.x compatible still struggles with alot of those design choices.
|
|
Wizard spells =/= Cleric spells.
Wizard spells are more powerful. They deal more damage, they take out more targets... they are better spells, if you simply compare them straight across. The fact that a cleric gets cleric spells every level doesn't actually mean anything - they are still less powerful than the wizard at casting all the time.
And if the cleric comes out a little bit ahead, that's fine. Every party needs a healer anyways, and this makes it a little more likely that each party will have a healer.
|
Why do Jason Bulmahn et al. think that full BAB + partial spells is overpowered but 3/4 BAB + full spells is acceptable? I'm going to wager it's incompetence.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say Paizo didn't have much to do with 3/4 BAB + full casting. I say that because that's what was in 3e and 3.5e. WotC's designers thought it was an acceptable idea and I bet Jason would tell you that cutting Clerics/Druids down to lower level spells was too big of a change to make given that backward compatibility to pretty much every adventure previously written (especially those produced by Paizo under OGL Pathfinder) was far more important.
I really think you're trying hard to place the blame (and in the wrong hands no less), which is about the most counterproductive thing you can do.
-Skeld
|
|
The argument against classes that break the current spell/BAB progression is 'that is the way it has always been!' Never mind that the system was arbitrarily set up at the start
Hell, I can't even convince some people that giving orisons to rangers and paladins isn't a big deal!
Edit: seeker, since Jason locked us out before I finished my reply, thanks for the rune/tattoo suggestion on Druids. Jason was totally wrong about that thread going nowhere. :p
Since the other thread got locked, I'm going to ask seekerofshadow to put up or shut up: prove to me that full BAB + 6th level spells is overpowered. You are making a positive claim and you need to provide proof. I'm claiming that it's not overpowered, which is a negative claim, and you can't darn well prove a negative. The burden of proof rests upon you.
Edit: seeker, since Jason locked us out before I finished my reply, thanks for the rune/tattoo suggestion on Druids. Jason was totally wrong about that thread going nowhere. :p
Your welcome, ya have a neat idea there. I'd like to see what ya end up with if ya finish it.
|
|
The argument against classes that break the current spell/BAB progression is 'that is the way it has always been!' Never mind that the system was arbitrarily set up at the start
I see your point, TOZ. If Paizo were going by the 'that is the way it has always been!' rule, then we could add MagZilla alongside the current CoDZilla. 3/4 BAB + full casting is an established base class formula going back to the release of 3e. It's a bad formula that has been carried forward to pathfinder for the sake of backward compatibility.
-Skeld
|
|
Since the other thread got locked, I'm going to ask seekerofshadow to put up or shut up: prove to me that full BAB + 6th level spells is overpowered. You are making a positive claim and you need to provide proof. I'm claiming that it's not overpowered, which is a negative claim, and you can't darn well prove a negative. The burden of proof rests upon you.
If they get crap spells and no class ability...they would be too weak. So instead of bugging the devs for a duskblade, which is a bloody fightery/sorcerer guy, why not ask for a GOOD spell list for the magus so that he can be a balanced fighter/wizard. Which is the design parameter of this class and the BLOODY BOOK IT IS IN. I'm sorry, but what books is the magus coming in again? Ultimate MAGIC was it? Why are people so bloody insistant on making a fightery/mage in a MAGIC based book. Go capaign for it in the ulrimate combat...sheesh.
If they get crap spells and no class ability...they would be too weak. So instead of bugging the devs for a duskblade, which is a bloody fightery/sorcerer guy, why not ask for a GOOD spell list for the magus so that he can be a balanced fighter/wizard. Which is the design parameter of this class and the BLOODY BOOK IT IS IN. I'm sorry, but what books is the magus coming in again? Ultimate MAGIC was it? Why are people so bloody insistant on making a fightery/mage in a MAGIC based book. Go capaign for it in the ulrimate combat...sheesh.
Was I talking to you? No? Then go away.
P.S. If they're going to do a gish class, then they need to do it well.
They are doing a fighter/ mage, not a full caster and not a full fighter..see half and half..or better then half and half but ok.
The argument against classes that break the current spell/BAB progression is 'that is the way it has always been!' Never mind that the system was arbitrarily set up at the start
Hell, I can't even convince some people that giving orisons to rangers and paladins isn't a big deal!
Edit: seeker, since Jason locked us out before I finished my reply, thanks for the rune/tattoo suggestion on Druids. Jason was totally wrong about that thread going nowhere. :p
Unfortunately gameplay balance was sacrificed for the greater goal of backwards compatibility. The 3.x core full divine casters (Druid and Cleric) clearly adopted the 3/4 BAB full caster progression template and honestly you can push them into a 1/2 BAB progression box without basically giving the finger to backwards compatibility.
The reasons for the overpowered divine caster have been articulated, it's primarily a bribe to get people to play a class that many people found to be be a chore in 1e/2e gameplay. Unfortunately between some other messed up mechanics (save or die prominence, casters being able to snipe niches from other classes, bad features and buff spells) clerics and druids ended up being classes that could turn non casters into idle henchmen at the game table.
Going forward I think it's clear that while pathfinder grandfathered in some broken stuff it's clear they don't want to base future designs on the grandfathered suspect stuff. Especially when the arcane spell list is definitely more powerful than the equivalent level clerical list.
While this alpha of the Magus is underpowered I think it's possible to give the Magus enough chrome to fill out the basics of a 3/4 progression bard equivalent caster and make him worthwhile in actual play even if he potentially lags behind the cleric and druid.
Since the other thread got locked, I'm going to ask seekerofshadow to put up or shut up: prove to me that full BAB + 6th level spells is overpowered.
Prove that it is not.
Go on.
Provide un-refutable proof of 'balance' within a system that's built on the key concept 'every has their own style of play'.
..
Show us how to compare two classes in a un-refutably 'fair' manner.
..
Show us how to demonstrates all the capabilities of class, taking into account how different players make use of them within their games.
..
Kindly put up and/or ideally shut up.
They are doing a fighter/ mage, not a full caster and not a full fighter..see half and half..or better then half and half but ok.
And ya the burden of proof is on you. If I say I can fly, I need to prove that I can, not everyone else.
Seeker: FULL BAB + 6th LEVEL SPELLS IS OVERPOWERED
Tom: It is not.Seeker: NUH UH YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT'S NOT OVERPOWERED
Allow me to demonstrate an analogous situation.
Seeker: THIS BOX IS FULL
Tom: It is not.
Seeker: NUH UH YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE BOX IS EMPTY
PROTIP: Seeker, you can't prove that something is underpowered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Tom, your making the claim here.
|
|
Was I talking to you? No? Then go away.
Wow, guy. You really need to take a deep breathe or a cold shower or maybe a tranquilizer or something. Looking back through your posts, these playtests really don't seem to bring out the best in you.
Unless you're goal is to get this thread locked too.....
-Skeld
Tom, your making the claim here.
No. You are the one making the claim. Either prove that the magus is overpowered or stop posting about it.
Was I talking to you? No? Then go away.Wow, guy. You really need to take a deep breathe or a cold shower or maybe a tranquilizer or something. Looking back through your posts, these playtests really don't seem to bring out the best in you.
Unless you're goal is to get this thread locked too.....
-Skeld
Aww, come on now, he/she/it just needs a hug from somebody who loves them!
sigh, no. Your claim is that full BAB and the current class is not overpowered. That is your claim. So you prove it's not or as you put it shut up about it.
I made observations and asked questions you choose to ignore. Your the one making arbitrary claims with nothing to back you up.
|
|
Since the other thread got locked, I'm going to ask seekerofshadow to put up or shut up: prove to me that full BAB + 6th level spells is overpowered. You are making a positive claim and you need to provide proof. I'm claiming that it's not overpowered, which is a negative claim, and you can't darn well prove a negative. The burden of proof rests upon you.Wizard-6 Fighter-4, Eldritch Knight-10 is BAB 17 with 7th level (unrestricted arcane) spells, and even some class abilities. The more popular W-8, Fighter-2 EK-10 has 9th level spells and BAB16. That's close enough for government work to level 6 casting and full BAB, so it seems almost trivially true that one could make a balanced class that people wouldn't be queueing up to play as overpowered or castigating as a total gimp.
WHAT class abilities?!? Seriously...that is like my biggest gripe with the EK.
sigh, no. Your claim is that full BAB and the current class is not overpowered. That is your claim. So you prove it's not or as you put it shut up about it.
I made observations and asked questions you choose to ignore. Your the one making arbitrary claims with nothing to back you up.
You don't really into logic.
|
|
If they get crap spells and no class ability...they would be too weak. So instead of bugging the devs for a duskblade, which is a bloody fightery/sorcerer guy, why not ask for a GOOD spell list for the magus so that he can be a balanced fighter/wizard. Which is the design parameter of this class and the BLOODY BOOK IT IS IN. I'm sorry, but what books is the magus coming in again? Ultimate MAGIC was it? Why are people so bloody insistant on making a fightery/mage in a MAGIC based book. Go capaign for it in the ulrimate combat...sheesh.Was I talking to you? No? Then go away.
P.S. If they're going to do a gish class, then they need to do it well.
Wow, ain't we on the fast track to getting banned.
And who said a gish had to have full BAB?!? I'm sorry, but NO gish build EVER had full BAB (in fact the higest was 18 and most was at 16...and many with 15 or less was acceptable...the most optimized one had BAB 17). The duskblade was not a gish. The limited spell known and spell list made it unworthy of the name. You want full bab, you want something fighter based because you can not have a full BAB with a spell list that makes a character a gish and not be overpowered...because it means your spell list has at least 8th level wizard/sorcerer spells in it (bards get irrestible dance, a wiz/sor 8 spell for example).
|
I think its really hard to determine how effective and strong/weak this class is going to be without also have access to his full list of available new spells and feats from Ultimate Magic. All it would take is one feat and a couple tailored spells to fix a lot of the complaints with this class, at least based on what I have seen from spells/feats from the APG. Its sort of like determining whether a cleric is balanced only seeing half the spell list, and no channeling feats. Without selective channeling, channel positive energy is sort of a mixed blessing instead of a very effective healing tool. Once we get to see the "full picture", I think we can judge better whether the class is balanced with 3/4ths BAB.
|
|
WHAT class abilities?!? Seriously...that is like my biggest gripe with the EK.Since the other thread got locked, I'm going to ask seekerofshadow to put up or shut up: prove to me that full BAB + 6th level spells is overpowered. You are making a positive claim and you need to provide proof. I'm claiming that it's not overpowered, which is a negative claim, and you can't darn well prove a negative. The burden of proof rests upon you.Wizard-6 Fighter-4, Eldritch Knight-10 is BAB 17 with 7th level (unrestricted arcane) spells, and even some class abilities. The more popular W-8, Fighter-2 EK-10 has 9th level spells and BAB16. That's close enough for government work to level 6 casting and full BAB, so it seems almost trivially true that one could make a balanced class that people wouldn't be queueing up to play as overpowered or castigating as a total gimp.That character has for class abilities:
Whatever abilities from Wizard 6-8, including whatever school specialization he took, and probably 1 bonus wizard feat
Several bonus feats (2 or 3) via the 2-4 fighter levels and possibly armor training 1
3 bonus feats from EK, access to fighter only feats from 12th-14th level depending on which version he is and
Spell critical (which would be worlds better if it wasn't dependent on a swift action, along with arcane armor training and arcane strike).
So he's got class abilities, just not loads of them. I'd ask to replace spell critical with something different---like, say, removing the swift action requirement from arcane armor training and arcane strike as my capstone---spell critical is a little anime-ish for my tastes. With that I could wear good armor, melee, and toss a quickened spell every once in a while or cast a spell and perhaps a quickened spell.
Bleh...those don't count and ya know it... :P .
It's just so vanilla and boring. I want stuff that actually blends the two, like the spell channeling that spellswords got.
|
|
The problem is, being able to blend the two raises your expected DPR. That's why the magus only gets up to 6th level spells---because he CAN blend melee with casting in the same round, making for some pretty righteous DPR (check the DPR olympics thread). If he couldn't do that, he could probably have full BAB AND an unrestricted arcane spell list without any balance issues whatsoever. Blending like that is a really expensive capability balance-wise.
The EK could get several more flavor abilities, like the monk's in terms of utility, without being unbalanced, but blending is the one that makes people scream about no full BAB and more than rotten casting.
Actually...spell channeling lowered your DPR in general. What it allowed you to do was selective target who you wanted spells to effect (which is REALLY broken with AMF mind you). 5 attacks doing weapon+16d4 each WAY outstrips any damage spells you spell channel. Not that I want the 3.5 spell channel back mind you...it caused some horrible issues with certain spells. But an ability like the old arcane strike would be nice. And maybe a toned down version of the spell channel where the spell has to be an instant spell...or a touch spell (still uses up a move to do of course).
Cleric could have low BAB and still be stupidly powerful so long as he has a spell which gives him full ;p
As for Magus and 3/4ths, it could work if the Magus had a means of offensively increasing his attack power. Right now, he doesn't. Think of the Psychic Warrior - 3/4ths BAB, but with a ton of swift cast powers to add to that attack bonus, effectively giving him full BAB after swift-round buffing. The Magus doesn't have that.
Cleric could have low BAB and still be stupidly powerful so long as he has a spell which gives him full ;p
Which does not exist in the cleric's spell list. He could always use Transformation, but... well, it's not a cleric spell, nor is it any good for a full caster.
|
The magus, as he stands now, could have full BAB and be a mid-tier character. His spellblade weilding effect isn't very good... At least, not during PFS levels. He's as MAD as they get, and his spell list, while arcane, focuses on some buffs and the underpowered damage line of mages.
So I agree with the poster, you could give an arcane full BAB and 3/4 progress as long as most of the class features are fairly unexciting. He'd end up at about the power level of a Fighter or Ranger or Bard, not even ad strong as the top-tier classes, though not the Barbarian/Cavalier/Monk "weaksauce" he is now.
|
Right.
So, why doesn't everybody have full BAB ?
There are several things that run off BAB.
First - hitting things. Due to attack bonuses scaling up far quicker than AC bonuses do, it's not that much of a problem. After all, Rogues stab people with medium BAB. And people usually have some full caster or a Bard handy for buffapalooza.
Second - iteratives. Now, we're getting somewhere. Some classes have stuff that makes multiple attacks desirable. That's why Rogues don't have fast BAB - every their attack can be a sneak attack, and having one additional attack early would make their DPR rather silly under the right circumstances.
Third - feats. No, I don't mean Power Attack. I mean Improved Critical (again, Rogues), all the jazzy PF critical feats, I'm Not Even Opening APG or WotC Splatbooks For This One. That's because many feats run of BAB requirement, and you have to take that into the account while judging a class vs. BAB problem.
Fourth - full BAB classes. Is having a full BAB making them look silly, due to above concerns ?
So, take these four points into consideration when going nerdrage pro/contra Magus with full BAB. I guess that we need to wait for further Beta revisions to see how do the above criteria stack up.