|
No offense, but I have to question if the class your describing is needed or wanted, I can't help but think we have already seen enough classes (bard, summoner, alchemist, eldritch knight, arcane archer, inquisitor) that do exactly what your trying to do again with another class. While a class I would like to see a hexblade like martial class with secondary arcane abilities like a arcane paladin isn't necessary.Edit: Sorry re-reading my post it comes of as whiny. Your the designer not me, I just don't like this particular design.
To expect what you want in a book called ultimate magic is...umm...not really logical. Go bug the devs for it in ultimate combat.
I believe Monk abilities are in Ultimate Magic...
And I agree with Meepo, if I imagined that the Paladin didn`t yet exist,
would I be at all surprised to find it as a new class within Ultimate Divine? (No)
Anyway, I think this bush is beat enough already.
Personally, I think the missing Arcane equivalent to Ranger/Paladin was the most obvious class niche needing to be filled,
not an Arcana analog to the Medium BAB/HD `plus` Inquisitor or another take on the same role as the Arcane Duelist / Spellsword Bard.
But thats what looks like Jason wants to do with this class. And thinking about it, having 3/4 casting means the Magus probably needs LESS wonky class abilities than if it were the Ranger/Paladin analog. Those classes have ALOT of very specific class abilities, all the more so in PRPG where `mere` Full BAB doesn`t really cut it. Though I might prefer something different, I don`t see anything fundamentally `wrong` with an Arcane Inquisitor.
Anyhow... I just hope that the flavor and role of the Magus is made well distinct from the Arcane Duelist / Spellsword Bard as well as the Eldritch Knight... Speaking of which, the ElK seriously needs some good Feats (more than worth displacing Combat Feats) and I think they should get access to the sexy new Magus spells as well.
I don't see Magus that way. If I should compare it to a class, it would be Psywarrior. Mediaum BAB, but a lot of tricks to beat the **** out of you.
Maybe mechanics should be fixed (playtest exist for this) but I see perfectly the medium BAB thing with the character concept.
Improve the class features (people suggeste what the weak points are) and it will be fine, IMO.
I see the arcane equivalent of ranger and paladin as a nice option, indeed. Hexblade with witch hexes?
Or, as I suggested in another thread, make some witch hex available as magus arcana to "mimicry" the hexblade?
|
|
I believe Monk abilities are in Ultimate Magic...
And I agree with Meepo, if I imagined that the Paladin didn`t yet exist,
would I be at all surprised to find it as a new class within Ultimate Divine? (No)Anyway, I think this bush is beat enough already.
Personally, I think the missing Arcane equivalent to Ranger/Paladin was the most obvious class niche needing to be filled,
not an Arcana analog to the Medium BAB/HD `plus` Inquisitor or another take on the same role as the Arcane Duelist / Spellsword Bard.
But thats what looks like Jason wants to do with this class. And thinking about it, having 3/4 casting means the Magus probably needs LESS wonky class abilities than if it were the Ranger/Paladin analog. Those classes have ALOT of very specific class abilities, all the more so in PRPG where `mere` Full BAB doesn`t really cut it. Though I might prefer something different, I don`t see anything fundamentally `wrong` with an Arcane Inquisitor.
Your thinking wrong. Ultimate magic is about MAGIC...both divine AND arcane. Now if the paladin didn´t exist, do you think such a class fits in an all magic focused book or the all combat focused book? The answer should be pretty obvious. The monk stuff deals with the ki...which is pretty much monk magic so it does kinda fit...but I do admit, that would have been better in combat.
While its true that I do not need to provide my reasoning behind every decision, unless your name happens to be Erik Mona or Lisa Stevens, as Lead Designer, I do have a fair amount of leeway in making the game.
That said, this issue keeps coming up.
This book is called Ultimate Magic, and while I am building a class that has a martial bent to it, it still must serve as a magic focused class first and foremost. To this end, the decision was made to make the class with a 3/4 progression. This gives us much more room in adding other cool powers and abilities to the class. Now you might argue, and in some cases rightly so, that we have not taken full advantage of that room, but that is why we playtest.
The next iteration will explore some more of that room and I think you will find the 3/4 a bit more justified.
Just some random musings at midnight.. back to working on Words of Power for me.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thank You! Always good to hear from you.
Funny you mention the psychic warrior, because that class was extremely fun to play, yet had only two class features: bonus feats and psionic powers. That's literally all it had.I don't see Magus that way. If I should compare it to a class, it would be Psywarrior...
Improve the class features (people suggeste what the weak points are) and it will be fine, IMO.
Ah, but look at which powers it had.
Psionic Warrior could live with 3/4ths BAB because he had such a large array of offensive buffs, and a large array of swift action powers. Magus doesn't have that.
|
|
Now if the paladin didn´t exist, do you think such a class fits in an all magic focused book or the all combat focused book? The answer should be pretty obvious.Is it obvious? If the holy avenger didn't already exist, what book should have the rules for that powerful magic sword? The magic book or the combat book?
umm...the item book maybe?!?
Your thinking wrong. Ultimate magic is about MAGIC...both divine AND arcane.
Yes, yes. You've already beaten this dead horse plenty, thanks. We know you think the class is all about MAGIC and that because the name of the book has MAGIC in it is has to be 90% a spellcaster. And anyone suggesting it be a competent melee aside from MAGIC or have features not based on MAGIC is completely wrong because class design should be totally based on one word in a book name.
EDIT: No offense, but it seems like you're the one with unrealistic expectations. A magic book could certainly have an arcane equivalent of a ranger or paladin. Hell, call it the MAGIC fighter, if you must. And really, were I you, expecting this class to be mostly a spellcaster, I'd be even more annoyed with its current incarnation than if I looked at it expecting a gish.