I never had problems with the big three breaking the game but IF you consider the psion a problem, the wizard it's a problem twice bigger, if not more.
But please, don't derail. Quote me/us and open another thread.
If he's not exactly a melee-heavy caster--which Jason has confirmed--then what is he supposed to be bringing to the table? Before we can really discuss how the class functions, we need to know what it's supposed to do mechanically.
What is the magus supposed to do?
Quiet all the "Gish" threads!
|
Apparently it also succeds in The Den having a spirited conversation on:
a) when will Jason be fired from Paizo,
b) who from the Den has sock puppet accounts on Paizo forums and why are they careless to allow us, the dreaded Paizils, to discover their true identities.
Which are both insanely amusing.
The Den? What is that?
|
|
Tl;dr - It's a forum about gaming, centred around a group of hardcore theorycrafters who spend their days dissecting/bashing RPGs mechanics. Their forum has next to no moderation, and as result they are accustomed to insulting everyone and everything that disagrees with them.
Some of them actually make sense in their posts, but the amount of low quality snark and high quality vitriol is mostly unbearable.
They have a rather big axe to grind against Paizo and Pathfinder - a bunch of them turned up during the Beta playtest, but they simply couldn't contain their attitudes and got banned.
Ever since they are on a holy crusade against Paizo, Jason, and us (paizo forum posters, collectively known as Paizils).
Once in a while (usually during playtests) a bunch of them activate and stir the pot.
Off Topic:
a bunch of them turned up during the Beta playtest, but they simply couldn't contain their attitudes and got banned.
That was very sad, too, because some of them offered some incredibly useful input that was ignored because of the Simpsons "Comic Book Guy" tone they affected.
|
a bunch of them turned up during the Beta playtest, but they simply couldn't contain their attitudes and got banned.That was very sad, too, because some of them offered some incredibly useful input that was ignored because of the Simpsons "Comic Book Guy" tone they affected.
Yeah, it's why I occasionally show up just to tell people who agree with me in analysis to be careful how they word their posts. The package in which you deliver your criticism is sometimes more important than the critique itself - if you don't approach things in a civil, adult and clear manner...you will be ignored.
And it's not entirely unfair that the world works that way. But I agree, some very good critiques and suggestions got dismissed simply due to the extremely poor online social skills of those offering them.
Yeah, it's why I occasionally show up just to tell people who agree with me in analysis to be careful how they word their posts.
That point can never be made often enough.
The magus should travel the land in search of worthy foes, who will fall before him. He is so deadly, in fact, that his enemies will go blind from overexposure to pure awesomeness. It matters not how many foes he faces. They are no match for his bodacity! Never before has a hero been so feared! And so loved.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
I see you like to chew. Perhaps you should chew... ON MY FIST!!
Tl;dr - It's a forum about gaming, centred around a group of hardcore theorycrafters who spend their days dissecting/bashing RPGs mechanics. Their forum has next to no moderation, and as result they are accustomed to insulting everyone and everything that disagrees with them.
Some of them actually make sense in their posts, but the amount of low quality snark and high quality vitriol is mostly unbearable.
They have a rather big axe to grind against Paizo and Pathfinder - a bunch of them turned up during the Beta playtest, but they simply couldn't contain their attitudes and got banned.
Ever since they are on a holy crusade against Paizo, Jason, and us (paizo forum posters, collectively known as Paizils).
Once in a while (usually during playtests) a bunch of them activate and stir the pot.
I think before people post with such scathing attitudes, they should have to sit through this adorable video that is almost sure to quell even the harshest of men. :)
That kid lived, that kind of false advertising is destroying Mr. Fishy's faith in airbreathing...tentacle...dog...things?
|
I think before people post with such scathing attitudes, they should have to sit through this adorable video that is almost sure to quell even the harshest of men. :)
Holy crap. So this is what its like to be happy. I never knew how amazing it was. You have changed my life.
Holy crap. So this is what its like to be happy. I never knew how amazing it was. You have changed my life.
I think before people post with such scathing attitudes, they should have to sit through this adorable video that is almost sure to quell even the harshest of men. :)
Just doing my god given duty, sir.
And thanks to your name, I am reminded what to buy tonight for the After-Pathfinder hangout :D
That's flat out wrong. There are posters who are quite happy with thier Magus. And the posters on this board are hardly representative of the Pathfinder playerbase. The proof will be in the pudding, the people who do actual playtesting as opposed to testing by theorycraft which is what most of the people posting here are doing instead of what's actually being asked of us by Paizo.
Anyway. Right now, the Magus satisfies nobody.
There are posters who were quite happy with 3.5 Fighters, that doesn't mean the class was well made.
I've had fun playing RIFTS, and RIFTS is a freaking terrible system.
"I had fun" isn't a good basis for things, because if you're with a good group, you can have fun in spite of things.
As for TGD,it's a crappy forum with a few genuinely intelligent posters and a lot of really terrible ones, just like everywhere else on the internet. These forums are no exclusion, because there are no exclusions. The only difference between it and everywhere else on the internet is that the percentage there drifts rather far against the intelligent posters.
That's flat out wrong. There are posters who are quite happy with thier Magus. And the posters on this board are hardly representative of the Pathfinder playerbase. The proof will be in the pudding, the people who do actual playtesting as opposed to testing by theorycraft which is what most of the people posting here are doing instead of what's actually being asked of us by Paizo.
Anyway. Right now, the Magus satisfies nobody.
There are posters who were quite happy with 3.5 Fighters, that doesn't mean the class was well made.
I've had fun playing RIFTS, and RIFTS is a freaking terrible system.
"I had fun" isn't a good basis for things, because if you're with a good group, you can have fun in spite of things.
Pretty much. System is about 5% of any given game. The rest has to do with the other players and the DM. People online need to realize that system is largely irrelevant to having fun. That being said, forums like this one exist to discuss that 5% of the game, so anyone who bothers posting "I had fun" or its equivalent is contributing to the discussion less than the Trolls.
Also, Lazarx, a good number of us HAVE run the Magus and seen its flaws in action (I did). Even if we hadn't, you can't actually argue that numbers are wrong. The system is based on numbers. Fact of the matter is, "You're just theorycrafting" has become the tacky rote response to people whose opinions one doesn't share here on the Paizo Forums. We could say the same of you.
|
|
I agree a lot with Freesword above. Often in these playtest forums I read people who seem to bash people who are offing opinions without playing the class. While playing is useful, those who are educated in/skilled in/employed in analysis-based professions can offer good advice wothout needing to play the thing. I don't need to be a drug runner or DEA agent to offer advice on border control/foreign policy regarding illegal drugs. I just need facts and ideas.
Yeah. The Thrall power is totally balanced. Completely.
BECAUSE ONE BAD POWER MEANS THAT THE ENTIRE CLASS IS OVERPOWERED AMIRITE
That's flat out wrong. There are posters who are quite happy with thier Magus. And the posters on this board are hardly representative of the Pathfinder playerbase. The proof will be in the pudding, the people who do actual playtesting as opposed to testing by theorycraft which is what most of the people posting here are doing instead of what's actually being asked of us by Paizo.
Anyway. Right now, the Magus satisfies nobody.
There are posters who were quite happy with 3.5 Fighters, that doesn't mean the class was well made.
I've had fun playing RIFTS, and RIFTS is a freaking terrible system.
"I had fun" isn't a good basis for things, because if you're with a good group, you can have fun in spite of things.
Pretty much. System is about 5% of any given game. The rest has to do with the other players and the DM. People online need to realize that system is largely irrelevant to having fun. That being said, forums like this one exist to discuss that 5% of the game, so anyone who bothers posting "I had fun" or its equivalent is contributing to the discussion less than the Trolls.
Also, Lazarx, a good number of us HAVE run the Magus and seen its flaws in action (I did). Even if we hadn't, you can't actually argue that numbers are wrong. The system is based on numbers. Fact of the matter is, "You're just theorycrafting" has become the tacky rote response to people whose opinions one doesn't share here on the Paizo Forums. We could say the same of you.
And some of us have played the Magus and found it to be pretty decent, not OMG GODLIKE GREAT, but decent. Yes it can use a few tweaks, but alot of people here are calling for a complete overhaul and/or a trip to the garbage bin.
And speaking of tacky, how about belittling someone that doesn't agree with your opinion.
I agree a lot with Freesword above. Often in these playtest forums I read people who seem to bash people who are offing opinions without playing the class. While playing is useful, those who are educated in/skilled in/employed in analysis-based professions can offer good advice wothout needing to play the thing. I don't need to be a drug runner or DEA agent to offer advice on border control/foreign policy regarding illegal drugs. I just need facts and ideas.
That's only half right. Theory has much to offer; experience has much to offer. One is not inherently superior to the other. Ignoring "the numbers" is a bad idea. Ignoring game play is equally lacking.
He stabs and blasts. Done.
|
|
That's only half right. Theory has much to offer; experience has much to offer. One is not inherently superior to the other. Ignoring "the numbers" is a bad idea. Ignoring game play is equally lacking.
That's what I'm saying. Pretty much exactly. referring to my above example, input from DEA agents (stakeholders) should not be ignored. I'm just saying that analysis is not inherently worse than play experience.
I agree a lot with Freesword above. Often in these playtest forums I read people who seem to bash people who are offing opinions without playing the class. While playing is useful, those who are educated in/skilled in/employed in analysis-based professions can offer good advice wothout needing to play the thing. I don't need to be a drug runner or DEA agent to offer advice on border control/foreign policy regarding illegal drugs. I just need facts and ideas.This. Theorycrafting is only flawed when the premises behind it are flawed. Much like construction, anything built in a poor foundation will crumble. The good theorycrafters pick accurate premises. Then when they field test the same things happen. Because they were right.
My PF game is today. I've already called my DM and convinced him to replace a BBEG with an equal level Magus without telling anyone. As the BBEG once was a Sorcerer or Wizard, what I expect to happen is that he will be blown away easily. If he even gets a turn, he will not do anything significant on it. The DM would not have gone along with the idea normally. He was already aware of the Magus, and how weak it was. So he was not inclined to use it, not believing it was good for anything. I pointed out that one of our players had a birthday yesterday. I quote "Correction: The Magus is good for one thing."
So one of the players is getting the birthday present of a dead Magus.
This is rediculous. I fail to see how this is even remotely constructive or helping in any fashion, or how it can be anything other than a giant F U to Jason, simply because on a rough draft, first attempt, he didn't magicly make a hybrid caster/melee class you feel is worthy of play. Just...wow, man.
Take your ball and go home. It's ok, really.
And speaking of tacky, how about belittling someone that doesn't agree with your opinion.
Actually, considering how rude and widespread the attitude was that preceded my comment, I thought I was pretty generous. You may be a little oversensitive if you consider that 'belittling.'
|
|
I agree a lot with Freesword above. Often in these playtest forums I read people who seem to bash people who are offing opinions without playing the class. While playing is useful, those who are educated in/skilled in/employed in analysis-based professions can offer good advice wothout needing to play the thing. I don't need to be a drug runner or DEA agent to offer advice on border control/foreign policy regarding illegal drugs. I just need facts and ideas.This. Theorycrafting is only flawed when the premises behind it are flawed. Much like construction, anything built in a poor foundation will crumble. The good theorycrafters pick accurate premises. Then when they field test the same things happen. Because they were right.
My PF game is today. I've already called my DM and convinced him to replace a BBEG with an equal level Magus without telling anyone. As the BBEG once was a Sorcerer or Wizard, what I expect to happen is that he will be blown away easily. If he even gets a turn, he will not do anything significant on it. The DM would not have gone along with the idea normally. He was already aware of the Magus, and how weak it was. So he was not inclined to use it, not believing it was good for anything. I pointed out that one of our players had a birthday yesterday. I quote "Correction: The Magus is good for one thing."
So one of the players is getting the birthday present of a dead Magus.
I can point you to a place on the Internet where the above post will give you instantly +10 cool points with the locals. It's a bit too civil, but hey, everybody starts somewhere. :)
Mr. Fishy has a question, Why does the Magus have to be melee and casting?
Why can't the Magus just be a combat/caster? Idea, spell combo works only with a magus' focus weapon. The power is still limited but the limit is changed to one weapon instead of one type.
Mr. Fishy's magus wants to fireball his enemies and then shoot the suviviors...IN THE SAME ROUND! Spell Combo! You fish eating seal bastards!
A wizard takes a beating for losing his bonded object so a Magus could too. It limits the Magus' abilities and adds flavor to the class as a caster that uses his weapon with his magic [with the bonus of a choice of weapon]. Mr. Fishy would prefer that the Magus to use any weapon with his ability not just melee.
|
Mr. Fishy has a question, Why does the Magus have to be melee and casting?
Why can't the Magus just be a combat/caster? Idea, spell combo works only with a magus' focus weapon. The power is still limited but the limit is changed to one weapon instead of one type.
Mr. Fishy's magus wants to fireball his enemies and then shoot the suviviors...IN THE SAME ROUND! Spell Combo! You fish eating seal bastards!
A wizard takes a beating for losing his bonded object so a Magus could too. It limits the Magus' abilities and adds flavor to the class as a caster that uses his weapon with his magic [with the bonus of a choice of weapon]. Mr. Fishy would prefer that the Magus to use any weapon with his ability not just melee.
Except there already IS a archer/caster in the arcane archer. Mixed with the EK and you have pretty much any level as fighty/casty you want with archery. And if they made a melee version of the arcane archer, then all would be fine and we could turn the magus into the arcane ranger
Actually, considering how rude and widespread the attitude was that preceded my comment, I thought I was pretty generous. You may be a little oversensitive if you consider that 'belittling.'
And speaking of tacky, how about belittling someone that doesn't agree with your opinion.
Sorry, I forgot about the "everyone else was rude so it's OK if I'm rude too" rule.
I'm not being oversensitive, just pointing out the hypocritical nature of your post. You, following up on the good Professor's post, tell the quoted poster that he shouldn't dismiss the opinions of theorycrafters because they do the numbers and the game is about numbers. Then in the next breath you dismiss his opinion because he "only" had fun playing the class and fun is irrelevant to the game, calling him a troll in the process.
There are currently 17 base classes, do you like them all? Do you regularly play every one? I'm willing to bet that every class out there has some group of people that enjoy playing it despite everyone else on the forum saying it's unplayable and the Magus will end up the same.
I'm willing to bet that every class out there has some group of people that enjoy playing it despite everyone else on the forum saying it's unplayable and the Magus will end up the same.
Many, many years ago I played in a fun campaign. It was using an absolutely HORRID game system.
If asked if I enjoyed the campaign, I would tell you that I did.. it was a blast.
If asked if the game system needed work, I would say it needed to be overhauled from scratch as it was nigh useless.
Now the magus is not anywhere near as bad as that game system was, but mechanically it needs a great deal of work.
-James
And that's where we'll have to disagree. I think it's pretty good as is and just needs a couple minor tweaks.
Except there already IS a archer/caster in the arcane archer. Mixed with the EK and you have pretty much any level as fighty/casty you want with archery. And if they made a melee version of the arcane archer, then all would be fine and we could turn the magus into the arcane ranger
So?
The magus can't cast and shoot be cause of a PrC? The AA and the EK are prestige classes the magus was base class magical combatant. A "fighter/mage" but the magus is a melee mage.Mr. Fishy wants to know why the magus can't choose his own path. He has to use a melee weapon. He can't cast and shoot. Any other class chooses it's combat style. Fighter, rogues even casters like the wizard choose the spells they use to face an enemy. The Magus was to be a base class fighter/ mage hybrid but it seems to be a stabracadabra [Melee caster].
Full base att is a hot point. But so many other things could be discussed to improve the class other than spell combo and full attack bonus.
|
|
Except there already IS a archer/caster in the arcane archer. Mixed with the EK and you have pretty much any level as fighty/casty you want with archery. And if they made a melee version of the arcane archer, then all would be fine and we could turn the magus into the arcane ranger
So?
The magus can't cast and shoot be cause of a PrC? The AA and the EK are prestige classes the magus was base class magical combatant. A "fighter/mage" but the magus is a melee mage.Mr. Fishy wants to know why the magus can't choose his own path. He has to use a melee weapon. He can't cast and shoot. Any other class chooses it's combat style. Fighter, rogues even casters like the wizard choose the spells they use to face an enemy. The Magus was to be a base class fighter/ mage hybrid but it seems to be a stabracadabra [Melee caster].
Full base att is a hot point. But so many other things could be discussed to improve the class other than spell combo and full attack bonus.
Well you can allow a choose your style...but then you'd have to make one for TWF, sword and board and THF. And tone down spell combat in line to the fact that your casting a spell with more effective forms of combat then one handed full attacks. But that will lead to quite a bit of complication I would think.
I'm not being oversensitive, just pointing out the hypocritical nature of your post. You, following up on the good Professor's post, tell the quoted poster that he shouldn't dismiss the opinions of theorycrafters because they do the numbers and the game is about numbers. Then in the next breath you dismiss his opinion because he "only" had fun playing the class and fun is irrelevant to the game, calling him a troll in the process.
Dude, did you even bother read my post before responding? I don't know if English isn't your first language or you just barely skimmed what I wrote, but you're way off base. Part of the post was a general statement, a piggyback onto ProfessorCirno's statement. The other part of my post was directly addressing LazarX, but was only barely related to the first part. You see, it's easy to tell these two halves of my statement apart, because I wrote them in separate paragraphs, denoting separate subjects.
Pretty much. System is about 5% of any given game. The rest has to do with the other players and the DM. People online need to realize that system is largely irrelevant to having fun. That being said, forums like this one exist to discuss that 5% of the game, so anyone who bothers posting "I had fun" or its equivalent is contributing to the discussion less than the Trolls.
Here's part 1 of what I wrote. I'm clearly making a pretty broad point related to what ProfC had just said about playing Rifts. I mention trolls briefly, but I'm clearly not referring to anyone in particular(did you just see the word troll and go off?). I also don't dismiss anyone's opinion specifically, but a broad concept that isn't particularly useful in a playtest.
Also, Lazarx, a good number of us HAVE run the Magus and seen its flaws in action (I did). Even if we hadn't, you can't actually argue that numbers are wrong. The system is based on numbers. Fact of the matter is, "You're just theorycrafting" has become the tacky rote response to people whose opinions one doesn't share here on the Paizo Forums. We could say the same of you.
This is part two of what I wrote. The part where I refer to Lazarx's comment. Not only did I organize my writing by separating these paragraphs, I use his name in the opening sentence to indicate that this part of my post refers to him. Now, this part of the post, I do call him out for his response to MiB, because it's become a problematic response on these forums, that doesn't make sense, and is rude. At no point do I dismiss his opinion, I call him out for dismissing MiB's opinion as 'theorycraft.' At no point do I say the game is "about numbers" I said "based on numbers." I'm sorry if you don't like that statement, but numbers are the engine that drive the system, and this is a design feedback forum.
There are currently 17 base classes, do you like them all? Do you regularly play every one? I'm willing to bet that every class out there has some group of people that enjoy playing it despite everyone else on the forum saying it's unplayable and the Magus will end up the same.
This has nothing to do with anything, least of all this discussion. People will play the class the same way they played a 3.5 fighter. Playtest forums exist to make the class as good a class as possible. No one's saying it can't exist, we are saying it should and could be better designed.
As for what I said, I stand by it, and I didn't contradict myself. There's nothing hypocritical about defending one viewpoint and refuting another. At no point did I say "don't dismiss theory-craft because all opinions have equal value." They don't.
Telling people you had fun playing has more to do with your game session than it does with game design. If you have some specific reason or thing you liked about the class, by all means say so. Or, if you don't agree with criticism being leveled against it, then, again, by all means say so. But do so with either numbers or reason because satements like "well, you don't like all 17 classes do you?" or "your well-reasoned opinion is just theorycraft" have nothing to do with the class itself. It's not contributing to the discussion, and not valuable feedback. Sorry.
Not only were you completely oversensitive, you completely misrepresented what I said. And no, I'm not belittling you. If I wanted to belittle you I'd be insulting, not tell you why some feedback isn't valuable to a discussion.
I removed a post. I realize this thread is fairly heated and some people have tightly-held opinions about what they believe the Magus should be, but direct attacks on other posters will not be tolerated.
I think we can all be adults here.
Many, many years ago I played in a fun campaign. It was using an absolutely HORRID game system.
Don't worry, everybody tries to play rifts at least once, before deciding to take the setting and converting it to another sistem. ;)
After the playtest, I have but one thing to say.
QED.
Can you please post the details following the STANDARDISED PLAYTEST FEEDBACK FOR MAGUS IN ACTUAL PLAY sorry for caps, that's the title of the thread. X-D