Just what, exactly, is the magus supposed to do?


Round 1: Magus

401 to 411 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Reply, part two.

dunelord3001 wrote:
I stand by my statement - to have a entire dungeon affixed with bells that will convey meaningful details about who is at what location or covered one with darkness for a square mile will still take either a large investment or house rules.

Nah, you don't need to affix bells throughout dungeon. You just need a good bell at sentry point - or a few bells at several entry points. By the way, what would be a point of having sentries if they cannot sound an alarm?

Darkness is something usual in most underground complexes.

So, negligible and standard investment in first case, no investment in the second.

dunelord3001 wrote:
If you are going to use the name of a spell then I don't think in the game it's unreasonable for others to think you are referring to that spell. If you are wishing to debate the exact use of the word "house ruled" or "home brewed" then I'd suggest you start a new thread.

Precisely. Hence, kindly refrain from using those terms.

dunelord3001 wrote:
If you didn't wish for these to be considered as "house ruled" items/creatures then the first time you mentioned them it would have been much more helpful. I don't think that most people who read of a "Undead Zombie Under Ground Train" in someone's list of nonstandard encounters will be thinking that it has to be a core monster. Further I think this a even more reasonable conclusion after your posting that you run a house ruled game.

Kindly take your own advice and refrain from using using terms "house ruled".

Also, since you haven't read explanation above - these were EXAMPLES of ENCOUNTERS meant to illustrate how to build encounters of non standard durations. No mechanics were provided.
Any conclusions as to whether they were based on house rules or standard system, are out of place here.

Oh, and the worm itself was not a side in the encounter - it was build to be a container, a building, not an opponent.

dunelord3001 wrote:
I feel again you may be missing my point. If you have a situation that causes all members of a party to have to conserve resources then this doesn't show anything about any one class, unless the run out before other classes. If you saw that please do share, but if not then it doesn't really relate.

I beg to differ. If the caster class can play without going nova (as Magus is wont to do), then it should do fine.

dunelord3001 wrote:
Even if true it's irrelevant. Throwing mindless critters happens in games, and it's something that has to be considered.

Testing a zergling rush is not a challenge. There are also ample examples of similar tests already.

dunelord3001 wrote:
I'm going to take that as a "No, I haven't run the Magus through these or any other encounters." First off there are two problems with this. First you are making an assumption, which is at best a guess. Only a play test would give us real solid information here.

Sigh. I've said that my playest was not going to happen in time, didn't I?

All I did was devise encounter, and run performance testing to compare Magus efficiency to pure caster.
In the light of the above, lecturing me on merits of actual playtesting is pointless.

dunelord3001 wrote:
And this isn't a insult it's just that in anything as complicated as a RPG no one person can just look at it and dependably come up with solid information; hence the huge open play tests. For all we know the ability to change what your weapon is daily could end up being game breaking. I don't think so but till it's play tested who knows. Secondly after they are out of spells the Wizards is all but useless - no spells virtually no ability to hit with attacks nothing. A Magus although once out of spells is of course far weaker then he was before isn't quite so helpless - still might be more then able to hold up as a support melee character.

Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

The ability to change one's weapon properties is hardly gamebreaking - Paladin (divine bond), Cleric (spells) had similar ones for some time now.
The other examples are also rather moot - we've already covered similar situation with Bards and Monks. There is no need to repeat this particular experiences.

dunelord3001 wrote:
Also if you start using a house ruled Magus then it doesn't really show much about the main one.

Rogue Eidolon's build is done as per RAW version. I fail to see "house rule" element here.

dunelord3001 wrote:

It seems like you are building straw-man here. You never address my main point - that most games are not run in a fashion that is very close to yours, therefore your game(s) don't directly relate to what the purpose of the Magus is or anything else to do with the class. You argue my semantics - what is house ruled vs. what is third party, and bring up a fairly minor point about the word alarm when.

Have you ever used or seen RAW Magus in any games for any reason? Have you even rolled one up?

The fact of driving different make of a car does not change that the laws governing driving in one's country do not change. In other words, if other classes work fine in my environment, the others should do as well, too, especially since Magus uses already established mechanics.

If you're not comfortable with your opinions being challenged, you may want to reconsider your approach to the subject.

Until now, you have attempted to extend my examples beyond limits of applicability and then challenged their validity. This is not a good idea to dispute anything - you should either argue within parameters of the example or challenge the parameters of the example.

For example, in my case I use prolonged encounters with well organized opponents (as befits high level play). Challenging length of encounters is therefore fine as it is not part of RAW.
Challenging everything on grounds of being "houseruled" is not valid as long as you are not privy to actual rules used. And you're not since I haven't shared this information.
Oh, and building a case over use of bells (mundane item) and darkness (rather commmon underground) is downright hilarious.

Regards,
Ruemere


What I want, and what it is being made to do are two very different things.

I was looking for a combat class that got spells instead of class features to keep them to par with the fighter.

Sovereign Court

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

What I want, and what it is being made to do are two very different things.

I was looking for a combat class that got spells instead of class features to keep them to par with the fighter.

Arcane spells, I assume you to mean. :)

I'm interested in getting others' opinions on what makes their perfect arcane warrior.

Q: How does the Eldritch Knight not meet the needs of a the combat character that uses spells to keep them on par with the fighter?

My thoughts:
For me, I want the arcane warrior feel from the start. With Eldritch Knight, you either start out as a fighter or a wizard.

A paladin or a ranger (the closest classes to what I wanted out of the magus) is mostly a fighter that exchanges a feat for some divine or nature based abilities. The paladin gets a better will save, the ability to cast a first level spell at will (detect evil) and smites an evil opponent once per day, gaining significant offensive and defensive bonuses against one big opponent. The ranger gets a better reflex save, 4 extra skill points per level, bonuses to skills, attacks and damage versus a specific type of enemy, and more bonuses to nature skills (track) and the ability to use a nature themed skill in a special way (wild empathy). I'd like some arcane flavored ability right from the start. Maybe the ability to cast detect magic or shield or true strike at will, or some class ability that gives an arcane flavored bonus to attack, defense or movement.

Also the Eldritch knight has high casting prerequisites - as spells are always powerful, getting high level spells lets the eldritch knight get powerful at high level, but he just feels like a wizard that can survive an extra round in combat or whose rays hit more easily, rather than an Arcane Warrior to me.

Q: What sort of abilities would an arcane warrior have?

My thoughts:

What I like:
  • The ability to move in combat at high levels as required by the changes to the battlefield brought by high level magic - i.e. faster movement, flying, teleportation, plane shifting. As a warrior with arcane training, a magus should be able to deal with the twists and turns of an arcane battlefield to bring the fight to the enemy.
  • The ability to defend oneself with magic - whether this is as simple as using spells like shield, mirror image, displacement, globe of invulnerability or spell turning, or SR, or class abilities that mimic in some way these sorts of spells or abilities, the magus should use magic as much as mundane equipment and feats to defend themselves.
  • Spellcaster disruption - I think they need access, at the very least, to Disruptive and Spellbreaker. Something like a dispelling strike that can slowly chip away at spellcaster defenses might be cool too.
  • Using arcane power to fight in new ways. One of my personal favorite ideas is the ability to use telekinetic force to perform combat maneuvers. Maybe they are first performed using the magus' intelligence rather than strength, and eventually can be done at range. In these I kind of see them like force powers from Star Wars. The magus sees his cleric is being harried by a fighter, but the fighter is near the edge of a pit. The magus takes a moment to try to exert telekinetic force to push the fighter away from his ally and into the pit.
  • Using magic to enhance his own ability to fight. This usually ends up being transmutation spells or divination spells - true strike, haste, bull's strength. Maybe it's a weapon enhancing ability like the paladin's bond (and like the current playtest already has), or maybe it's a temporary class ability to ignore damage or change the type of damage being dealt by the magus' weapon.
  • Integration of spellcasting and combat. The current magus has a mechanic for that. I feel it's clumsy and difficult to balance fairly. I'd rather see some innate ability to store spells in weapons or items like spell storing. If the magus stored spells in his sword to release into himself at need - casting shield and haste into his weapon for the day to be released as a swift action into himself as needed. After a combat where he uses one of his spells, he can cast one of his other prepared spells into the weapon for another encounter.

What I've seen others ask for:

  • Spell Channeling - or some other ability to use evocation spells with an attack. I feel personally that giving the character the ability to use weapons as a fighter is enough, but some people like this imagery a lot. An offensive spell storing ability as well as defensive/buffing might be called for then.
  • Evocation blaster - I personally feel this can already be done with pure casters, but I know that a lot of people like this feel to an arcane warrior type character.


I am wondering if maybe the Magus should have fighter feats at -3 levels or negative -5 instead of half? It seems like getting half at ten is almost useless compared to the other feats characters getting at those levels.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

giving easy access to Fighter feats is like giving early access to spells...it devalues the class that has them as a bonus, because now he's not special.

When the fighter can spend a feat to gain spellcasting at level-3 for one level of spells, I'll be happy to swap.

==Aelryinth


dunelord3001 wrote:
I am wondering if maybe the Magus should have fighter feats at -3 levels or negative -5 instead of half? It seems like getting half at ten is almost useless compared to the other feats characters getting at those levels.

It should be at a linear shift from his magus levels (stacking with any fighter levels of course).

Having things progress as 1/2 level is something that even WotC finally realized they needed to move away from.. and Paizo wonderfully did in Pathfinder by altering such things as the skill system and paladin/ranger casting.

-James


Aelryinth wrote:

giving easy access to Fighter feats is like giving early access to spells...it devalues the class that has them as a bonus, because now he's not special.

When the fighter can spend a feat to gain spellcasting at level-3 for one level of spells, I'll be happy to swap.

==Aelryinth

I really think that spell casting for a feat is bit much even as a example.

Even if they did this they would get access to take weapon spec at 7th instead of 11th which doesn't seem like THAT huge of a jump. If that's just too soon for then they really need to trade it for something else all together because the 1/2 thing is just awkward.


I see the magi class as a basic utility class that has two dimensions. The first of those dimensions is a back up makeshift tank. The second is a limited scrappy wizard. The class structure as it stands now isn't bad. I mean it's a fair trade off to get both worlds of wizard/fighter but obtain those class features slowly and starts a little weak. The magi is a better option then mutilclassing fighter/wizard. The peak level in my opinion is level 12. At this point this class can get very potent. In fact I believe when the magi is built with the proper feats and right magus arcana this class exceeds the power scale to some degree. The reason I say this is because it's moderate possibility for the magi class at 12th level in one round cast three spells and have two attacks, three spells in one round. That is just nasty! I am very pleased at the creative nature of the class. My only real suggestion is to build in a few more options for magus arcana.


Joseph Nethery wrote:
I see the magi class as a basic utility class that has two dimensions. The first of those dimensions is a back up makeshift tank. The second is a limited scrappy wizard. The class structure as it stands now isn't bad. I mean it's a fair trade off to get both worlds of wizard/fighter but obtain those class features slowly and starts a little weak. The magi is a better option then mutilclassing fighter/wizard. The peak level in my opinion is level 12. At this point this class can get very potent. In fact I believe when the magi is built with the proper feats and right magus arcana this class exceeds the power scale to some degree. The reason I say this is because it's moderate possibility for the magi class at 12th level in one round cast three spells and have two attacks, three spells in one round. That is just nasty! I am very pleased at the creative nature of the class. My only real suggestion is to build in a few more options for magus arcana.

Honestly? Magus needs more Duskblade.


I just looked up the duskblade and let me tell you this. There is a reason I left the 3.0/3.5 DnD books alone and went to pathfinder. The 3.5 books have no consistency from book to book. That said I won't even bother to look at any material from Wotc.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Later classes are more internally and externally balanced then earlier classes by WoTC. to9S is widely considered the most balanced presentation of melee classes they made, and it was one of the very last things they came out with. The PH2 gish classes, with their tightly restricted spell lists, are also considered well-balanced. Control of spell lists does a LOT for balance.

==Aelryinth

401 to 411 of 411 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Magic Playtest / Round 1: Magus / Just what, exactly, is the magus supposed to do? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Round 1: Magus
Board closed