BUT such spell is broken as itself. You cannot build the game around every broken thing of 3.5 to make them work, it's impossible.
Yep -- and frankly, more books always, always, always help casters more than anyone else, no matter how many times some people say otherwise. (Excluding most books that have no spells, if there even still is such a thing.)
A fighter has a limited number of feats, no matter what. A wizard has no limit to the size of his spellbooks, and cleric/druid don't even have that problem. As the number of spells approaches infinity, the number of them that are seriously ill-concieved or just plain broken increases at least linearly, and the number of unbalanced combinations of spells increases much more dramatically than that.
Among the game-breaking spells, a lot of the offenders were in core. Of course, splat didn't help - see celerity. Should be noted that on the melee side, splats helped in realizing archetypes overlooked by core.
As for melee versatility, two things, instead of moar feats:
IMHO, more skills + feats combos should be suggested, as special moves (even if this can be done on-the fly, as stated by GMG - but suggestion could bring GMs guidelines and inspire players).
Moreover, special strikes and techniques should be reached through a method similar to the old Oriental Adventures Martial Arts (you took the benefit of an "art" for free taking several feats). Maybe reworked, with less feats and more BAB on the table.
Guidelines to create them could be cool, too - sort of a reflection of spell research.
At high levels, could be interesting anti-debuff or anti spell defensive abilities. One should carefully evaluate the implication of the latter thing, tough.
Which is why 8 or 9 out of 10 of the best spells in 3.5 are right there in the PHB right? Oh wait...
And yet every time, and I mean every time you put up more than a passing defense of the Casters Uber Alles argument, you end up going for Nerveskitter, or Assay Resistance, or something that is not 3.5 core.
The irony of all this is, I know casters are the best classes and I beat people down about that all the time, but you stake out such a ridiculously extreme position it makes my own take seem moderate by comparison.
As for melee versatility, two things, instead of moar feats:
IMHO, more skills + feats combos should be suggested, as special moves (even if this can be done on-the fly, as stated by GMG - but suggestion could bring GMs guidelines and inspire players).
Moreover, special strikes and techniques should be reached through a method similar to the old Oriental Adventures Martial Arts (you took the benefit of an "art" for free taking several feats). Maybe reworked, with less feats and more BAB on the table.
Guidelines to create them could be cool, too - sort of a reflection of spell research.
At high levels, could be interesting anti-debuff or anti spell defensive abilities. One should carefully evaluate the implication of the latter thing, tough.
This is where the new combat maneuvers in the APG were a big help pointing out where "melee" class could get a boost outside of feats and gear. The Combat Maneuver system is actually wide open for additional development and additions. It's not clearly stated but the basic gist is if you want to do something cool in combat make it a Maneuver. I've suggested once that Ultimate Combat would be a good place for Maneuver + Skill combinations. As an example climbing or clinging to a two size categorizes bigger foe.
"I want to gut punch that guy."
"Make a Combat Maneuver check and he gets an AoO. If you pass he'll be nauseated for 1 round plus 1 round for ever 5 you succeed by."
Perhaps a bit strong for a simple Maneuver with extra penalties but you get the idea. Actually I think that's what Dirty Trick in the APG is supposed to cover exactly those kinds of things.
Actually I think that's what Dirty Trick in the APG is supposed to cover exactly those kinds of things.
New maneuvers, and dirty trick in particular, are very, very cool. I appreciated them A LOT.
Nevertheless, adding a lot of them could re-start the old problem: I can only take X feats, adding X options means nothing to me.
Making new maneuvers work with the current "improved X" ones, on the other hand.. could be VERY interesting!
James:
It's Mistah Green -- he(she/it?) does this -- pops into a thread spouts nonsense about how it's a "caster's only game" at higher levels (indeed just about all levels) then disappears if you actually apply the rules and math to the situation without an argument.
So you got two options: Ignore him as everyone else does, or pop up some math/rules and a situation or two and watch him go find someone else to bug.
|
The magic stuff is in the GM portion of each book for a reason. The only stuff that PC's can always buy (according to RAW) is the stuff in the player equipment section.
Now there are plenty of GM's who make casters overpowered in their games. I know some who make martial classes overpowered in their games, too, though not as many. This is more a GM thing than a game system thing.
|
The magic stuff is in the GM portion of each book for a reason. The only stuff that PC's can always buy (according to RAW) is the stuff in the player equipment section.
Now there are plenty of GM's who make casters overpowered in their games. I know some who make martial classes overpowered in their games, too, though not as many. This is more a GM thing than a game system thing.
3.5 and PF, as per RAW, is vastly in favor of casters. This has been proven after 10 years of play. WotC tried to make melee better by giving BoS and other things, but lots of people insist BoS is "overpowered". The reason lots of melee in 3.5 were Leap Attack Barbs and Spiked Chain Trippers were because they were the best of crappy stuff.
I don't remember 1E and 2E as well, but I think it's always been casters > non-casters. Just with the internet, people notice more easily. Doing damage was better back in the day, so lots of people who think casters are weak now probably think doing damage > Save or suck/die.
I think we might have got off topic here. The question here isn't really which classes are balanced it's what's the purpose of the Magus.
From what I have seen it looks like the Magus is a bit behind on both the attacks and casting. To try and make up for this he has Spell Combat and a few other abilities that let him get more done per round then a fighter or wizard or most pathfinder Gish combos could. For example at 9th level he can pretty much stay hasted, get out 3 attacks (because of the Haste), cast a touch spell as part of them, and cast a spell. I'd like to point out that none of this requires the Magus to take a feat.
I removed some posts. The Magus playtest may be over, but that doesn't mean the playtest boards are the proper place for debating the 'proper' way to play Pathfinder.
If you must discuss this topic, please create a new thread in the Pathfinder RPG General forum.
The magic stuff is in the GM portion of each book for a reason. The only stuff that PC's can always buy (according to RAW) is the stuff in the player equipment section.
Now there are plenty of GM's who make casters overpowered in their games. I know some who make martial classes overpowered in their games, too, though not as many. This is more a GM thing than a game system thing.
Um I can't see A "GM only" Section in my book. It just says "Core Rulebook" Not "This part for players, and this part for GMs".
|
|
But a bunch of pure casters are not better than a balanced group, and in some cases will probably be worse.
The point goes further IMO.
The amount of challenges a DM can create is huge. Situations, item and such can be adapted.
Full casters, few caster, no casters, all bards.. the game can support everyhting if the story and the encounters are well tought.
Of course, this does not mean different group can face different threats in the same way, or with the same effort.
BUT this does not mean that there is ONE way to play. Point out mistakes and umbalances is one thing, advocate a "true way" that BTW excludes half of the game is another.
also as pointed out his way of playing gets him killed by golems very easily.
also as pointed out his way of playing gets him killed by golems very easily.
Technically, you can rail on golems all day with SR: No spells.
Granted, I don't think the arsenal of those in PF core is all that great.
There's still enough there that it's no problem to deal with them.
I'll bite. How's the level 4 4-caster party going to kill a Flesh Golem?
Grease? Glitterdust? Eh. I don't think it's enough.
|
|
I am sorry, I would like a total clarification of what spells you are talking about, Mistah Green, when you say "Save or Lose".
Maybe I am not reading a book you are -> for the sake of arguing on this forum, I only consider the Core books (Core rulebook, Bestiary) and what ever book the topic is about originally (Magus play-test).
Any other spells I consider to be DM choice, and in any arguments I make that choice is always a resounding no.
Here is the list of spells according to the standards that I make my judgment by:
any spell listed between page 224 to page 239 of the Core rulebook
and any spell mentioned in the magus play-test book.
Could you please make a post (or contact me in some other way) that is in this format:
[Book name] [page number]
[Spell name]
[School (if applicable)]
[Spell level] [Class/Classes] [Minimum level with respect to each class]
EXAMPLE (simple)
Core Rulebook pg. 362
True Resurrection
conjuration (healing)
9th Cleric 17th
EXAMPLE (advanced)
Core Rulebook pg. 310
Magic Weapon, Greater
Transmutation
3-4th Cleric/Paladin/Sorcerer/Wizard 7th/10th/8th/7th
~Dusty
Back on topic...
The Magus is class that does 2 things at the same time. It's a primary melee class, meaning melee casting and weapon attacks. Range and survivability seems to be it's weakest points.
What will people prioritize stat wise? Initially i would think Dex, Int, Con, Str, Wis, Cha. Until later levels, you will want the high dex and armor combo for AC. At higher levels, many will seek magic armor to avoid the speed reduction. reflex is your worst save so this will offset that nicely. Intelligence will be key for spell DC's, bonus spells. I put Constitution in front of Strength because the class is behind in HP and Armor Proficeincy. With the bonded weapon, and it's ability to improve on already magic weapons, damage will increase making strength not necessary to get more than 1d8 out of a rapier. I would recommend weapon finesse to offset a lower BAB. Will power for the simple will save bonus and charisma last though for roleplay reasons I'd put charisma above wisdom as often as not.
The one class I've missed the most is the elven Bladsinger. Magus gives that back and for that reason I'll have one in a PBP as soon as a DM allows me to.
Again sits naked in a lawn chair watching the argument in amusement while drinking rum and eating cheetos
|
|
In the vein of the original topic
"just what, exactly, is the magus supposed to do?"
I believe that he is a conservative caster that can engage in melee most of the time, but will, when required, buff either himself or another to increase survivability and damage output.
What do I mean by conservative caster:
One who will spend most encounters without casting a spell (aside from 0th) but on harsh encounters, will quickly shoot off all of their spells.
What do I mean when I say "engage in melee most of the time"
This means that when the enemy is not specifically made to fight on par with the primary melee, he will engage it with no worries, but will only engage the melee focused foes when required to help the party or in slf defense.
I'll bite. How's the level 4 4-caster party going to kill a Flesh Golem?
Grease? Glitterdust? Eh. I don't think it's enough.
Those two work. So does Web, I think Entangle, and quite a few others. It has really bad saves, despite being 3 levels higher you can expect 75% success rates. Then just have the Druid and his friend auto attack it.
Sure, they work, but I don't think they're enough to kill it. They can buy time or keep it out of melee, but sooner or later you're going to have to get into melee to kill it, and even blind I think it's going to throw a pretty good whipping.
I don't think a flesh golem is the hardest encounter for the all-caster party by a longshot, but I come (as far as 3.X is concerned, anyway) from a Living Greyhawk tradition where you can expect a fight like that as level 3 characters as your third or fourth fight of the day.
Back on topic...
The Magus is class that does 2 things at the same time. It's a primary melee class, meaning melee casting and weapon attacks. Range and survivability seems to be it's weakest points.
What will people prioritize stat wise? Initially i would think Dex, Int, Con, Str, Wis, Cha. Until later levels, you will want the high dex and armor combo for AC. At higher levels, many will seek magic armor to avoid the speed reduction. reflex is your worst save so this will offset that nicely. Intelligence will be key for spell DC's, bonus spells. I put Constitution in front of Strength because the class is behind in HP and Armor Proficeincy. With the bonded weapon, and it's ability to improve on already magic weapons, damage will increase making strength not necessary to get more than 1d8 out of a rapier. I would recommend weapon finesse to offset a lower BAB. Will power for the simple will save bonus and charisma last though for roleplay reasons I'd put charisma above wisdom as often as not.
The one class I've missed the most is the elven Bladsinger. Magus gives that back and for that reason I'll have one in a PBP as soon as a DM allows me to.
Str, Int (no more than 16), Con/dex(even), wis, cha.
Str because you are a front line fighter, usually using a hand and a half weapon (ideally scimitar, without EWP). Focusing on dex is a trap if you ever want to deal decent damage, as you have no significant way to give yourself a boost. Two hand the scimitar whenever you are not using spell combat. The class needs no more than a 16 int to cast all of its spells. 14 is fine to start with, though I personally would not go lower than 15 (I have seen some 12 builds that still get all levels). He can mostly avoid spells that require saves and does not need to bump his DCs as high as a stardard caster. Con and dex will both add to your survivability roughly evenly, so I wouldn't really prioritize one over the other. I would probably take more dex, since your reflex save is low. Charisma is a decent dump. Wisdom just has its general uses, and you already have good will save.|
|
I'll bite. How's the level 4 4-caster party going to kill a Flesh Golem?
Grease? Glitterdust? Eh. I don't think it's enough.
Those two work. So does Web, I think Entangle, and quite a few others. It has really bad saves, despite being 3 levels higher you can expect 75% success rates. Then just have the Druid and his friend auto attack it.
Sure, they work, but I don't think they're enough to kill it. They can buy time or keep it out of melee, but sooner or later you're going to have to get into melee to kill it, and even blind I think it's going to throw a pretty good whipping.
I don't think a flesh golem is the hardest encounter for the all-caster party by a longshot, but I come (as far as 3.X is concerned, anyway) from a Living Greyhawk tradition where you can expect a fight like that as level 3 characters as your third or fourth fight of the day.
Let's not forget killing something is not the same as defeating it. D&D's objective in encounters is to overcome it. Killing, avoiding, negotiating, trapping, and sometimes, even running are all ways to overcome an encounter.
Golems might be hard to kill, but that's not the same thing as hard to stop. If it can't harm you, you've overcome it.
I shouldn't have to tell "role-players" that, but it seems like people have forgotten that.
|
|
Those two work. So does Web, I think Entangle, and quite a few others. It has really bad saves, despite being 3 levels higher you can expect 75% success rates. Then just have the Druid and his friend auto attack it.
flesh golem
Web is beaten by a +15 cmb
grease makes it fall but as long as someone is within 10 ft it does not have to move to attack and DR stops most longer ranged non-magic attacks. so the druid's pet gets mauled by the golem, additionally it will half the time make the DC 10 to move.
entangle is beaten by str, and it can still move and it really does not care about the -4 dex, if it does not beat it with str.
Golems might be hard to kill, but that's not the same thing as hard to stop. If it can't harm you, you've overcome it.I shouldn't have to tell "role-players" that, but it seems like people have forgotten that.
I was assuming an encounter in which those aren't an option, simply because they do occur and we're analyzing unfavorable cases.
Read the last part again.
Ok, and?
|
|
And of course giving your core book a once over reveals dozens of save or loses.
why yes it does... *takes a look* o-yes they all have SR or only target a specific type of thing until 6th level spells... hmmm they seem like snipe spells, not good spells to take anywhere that has more than 2 encounters a day.
|
|
"Then just have the Druid and his friend auto attack it."
Read the last part again.
Ok, and?
and in all of the spells (web, entangle, grease) the golem just wails on the druids companion till it dies, because it will be doing more damage and it will take less due to DR.
So now your out a spell, have a dead companion, and still haven't really hurt it. what next go prone standing next to it? seems like something your group would do.Edit-> This was callous and mean on my part, I let the troll get to me. I apologize (unless requested for it to be removed I will leave it however)
Note to self-> Never argue pathfinder while trying to make a 3d graphics render from scratch.
"Then just have the Druid and his friend auto attack it."
I don't think they're going to win. DR eats into the damage too much, AC on animal companions is pretty abysmal unless you have a DM charitable enough to let you have custom-made ape barding, and its HP aren't that great either. Even blind and prone I'll bet on the golem.
In 3.5 I think you could make a pretty good case for it. Druid + animal companion as a physical damage team is much less viable in PF core, especially in the pre-animal-growth levels.
The one class I've missed the most is the elven Bladsinger. Magus gives that back and for that reason I'll have one in a PBP as soon as a DM allows me to.
Str, Int (no more than 16), Con/dex(even), wis, cha.
Str because you are a front line fighter, usually using a hand and a half weapon (ideally scimitar, without EWP). Focusing on dex is a trap if you ever want to deal decent damage, as you have no significant way to give yourself a boost. Two hand the scimitar whenever you are not using spell combat. The class needs no more than a 16 int to cast all of its spells. 14 is fine to start with, though I personally would not go lower than 15 (I have seen some 12 builds that still get all levels). He can mostly avoid spells that require saves and does not need to bump his DCs as high as a stardard caster. Con and dex will both add to your survivability roughly evenly, so I wouldn't really prioritize one over the other. I would probably take more dex, since your reflex save is low. Charisma is a decent dump. Wisdom just has its general uses, and you already have good will save.
I have to agree with Caineach here. I love the idea of the Bladesinger as well, but I don't think the Magus is going to be it. Magus feels more like a heavily armored fighter with a heavy one-handed weapon. Honestly I think you can make a better Bladesinger with Eldritch Knight.
I would start with 14 Int, then Str, then Con. Anything left over can go to Dex and Wis, while Cha can be dumped.
That Magus needs to be better at combat than a Cleric, who has the same BAB but gets up to 9th level spells. Something that adds to his attack bonus seems mandatory, preferably something that can be used all the time and is not limited by uses or sacrificing spells.
I don't think you have to completely avoid spells with DC, as long as they have a secondary effect. A Cone of Cold that does half damage is still pretty good when you consider that the Magus also made a full attack for a bunch of damage.
I see no problems with ranged attacks. He has spells! He doesn't even need to draw a bow like the Fighter, he just casts and closes.
The Magus really will need his spells. Having abilities that use up spells will be a waste in my opinion.