Sounds like a plan.
I'd rather it just didn't have to make concentration checks. Casting through the pain should be a magus trope.
I'd rather it just didn't have to make concentration checks. Casting through the pain should be a magus trope.
You can't do that! Do you want to overpower the class?!
A Magus doesn't need Combat Casting. He really wants it, especially if he wants to excel at his signature ability. A Magus is supposed to suck at Spell Combat when he gets it. Getting what is tantamount to free Quicken at 2nd level is HUGE, it's like getting 5th level spells. At higher levels, like when characters actually get 5th level spells it becomes less huge, so they need a penalty that reflects this. Do you think it coincidence that the Magus' penalty to concentration checks goes away the level the Wizard can Quicken his own spells?
They could have given this ability later, like 5th or 6th level, when it was easier to use it, and slightly more balanced, but some might think it more fun to get it very early, and slowly get more proficient at it. Sure, you could use a feat or a trait to be better at it early on, but it costs resources, as it should.
A much, MUCH, better alternative would be to allow a Magus to pick up Combat Casting via Magus Arcana, similar to how a Rouge can pick up Weapon Finesse.
Also, not having to make concentration checks is kind of gamey and very powerful at low levels, and completely worthless at high levels. Again, it's better to allow them bonuses to concentration checks, like via Magus Arancans. (hey, would you look at that?)
A Magus doesn't need Combat Casting. He really wants it, especially if he wants to excel at his signature ability. A Magus is supposed to suck at Spell Combat when he gets it. Getting what is tantamount to free Quicken at 2nd level is HUGE, it's like getting 5th level spells. At higher levels, like when characters actually get 5th level spells it becomes less huge, so they need a penalty that reflects this. Do you think it coincidence that the Magus' penalty to concentration checks goes away the level the Wizard can Quicken his own spells?
They could have given this ability later, like 5th or 6th level, when it was easier to use it, and slightly more balanced, but some might think it more fun to get it very early, and slowly get more proficient at it. Sure, you could use a feat or a trait to be better at it early on, but it costs resources, as it should.
A much, MUCH, better alternative would be to allow a Magus to pick up Combat Casting via Magus Arcana, similar to how a Rouge can pick up Weapon Finesse.
Also, not having to make concentration checks is kind of gamey and very powerful at low levels, and completely worthless at high levels. Again, it's better to allow them bonuses to concentration checks, like via Magus Arancans. (hey, would you look at that?)
I disagree. First of all, unless you really hate players, you don't want to give them something to suck at, even at first level. The magus is about a certain schtick and he should be able to do it. A cleric doesn't suck at healing at level 1, he's just not as good as he will be. A fighter doesn't suck at fighting at any level.
Also comparing this with quicken at lowbie levels is very inaccurate. quicken is good because you can get off a second spell in that round, not an attack. As it stands, at a -4 penalty (which is huge at low levels), you're better off not bothering with this ability, so it's more of a liability than it is an asset.
I don't see how not making the magic checks is gamey. The Magus is trained to intermix spells with casting. That seems like exactly the kind of thing they would learn to do. I think it's stupid to have a caster who is intended to cast from the front lines lose his spell every time an ogre pokes him.
A bonus to checks also doesn't help the fact that making constant concentration checks is a pain in the a$$ at any level. The magus, unlike the wizard, is supposed to get hit, and he's supposed to be casting on the front lines, so, while a normal caster would try to avoid concentration checks, the magus deliberately puts himself in positions to make them. All that rolling is a giant hassle. The player I played with got annoyed in first few combats.
I disagree. First of all, unless you really hate players, you don't want to give them something to suck at, even at first level. The magus is about a certain schtick and he should be able to do it. A cleric doesn't suck at healing at level 1, he's just not as good as he will be. A fighter doesn't suck at fighting at any level.
Also comparing this with quicken at lowbie levels is very inaccurate. quicken is good because you can get off a second spell in that round, not an attack. As it stands, at a -4 penalty (which is huge at low levels), you're better off not bothering with this ability, so it's more of a liability than it is an asset.
I don't see how not making the magic checks is gamey. The Magus is trained to intermix spells with casting. That seems like exactly the kind of thing they would learn to do. I think it's stupid to have a caster who is intended to cast from the front lines lose his spell every time an ogre pokes him.
A bonus to checks also doesn't help the fact that making constant concentration checks is a pain in the a$$ at any level. The magus, unlike the wizard, is supposed to get hit, and he's supposed to be casting on the front lines, so, while a normal caster would try to avoid concentration checks, the magus deliberately puts himself in positions to make them. All that rolling is a giant hassle. The player I played with got annoyed in first few combats.
Quicken is more oft used to cast a second spell because that's what wizards do. A Cleric casting Quickened Divine Power and full attacking can be quite potent. Even more so if he can do it at 10th level. The reason Quicken is awesome is action economy.
There are some who think that a Magus shouldn't get Spell Combat until higher levels when he's able to do it reliably. That's a valid point. Personally, I would rather have the option of using Spell Combat, even unreliably, and the option of expending character resources to make it better. You seem to want to Spell Combat flawlessly right from the start, that would be like a Cleric starting with 4th level healing spells or a fighter starting with 4 8th-level bonus feats. There is no "Lesser Spell Combat" I don't even know how that would work, the ability is balanced through the penalties.
Since you can't auto-fail a concentration check, casting defensively becomes moot somewhere between 12 and 16th level for a Magus, depending on how much you pump Int and what level spell you're casting. If you take feats like Combat Casting, it becomes irrelevant even sooner. The only concentration checks that would give a high level Magus pause are the ones resulting from taking damage while casting, which require a readied action. These can be avoided as easily as other checks if you play it smart and can result in your enemy losing it's action.
So, at high levels, not having to make concentration checks is not very unbalanced, and would actually be quite appropriate for a Magus. At low levels, it is very unbalanced and would "cost" a Magus too much for an ability that would lose it's value so quickly.
I'd rather it just didn't have to make concentration checks. Casting through the pain should be a magus trope.+1
If spell combat didn't force the combat casting roll then the feat wouldn't be as essential for the class.
-James
At low levels AC, hp, and quantity of spell slots are all very low. Why wouldn't a Magus, in melee combat, be casting defensively?
I'd rather it just didn't have to make concentration checks. Casting through the pain should be a magus trope.+1
If spell combat didn't force the combat casting roll then the feat wouldn't be as essential for the class.
-James
I can see some merit to this. The problem is, keeping with TWF, there's no spell roll to take a -2 to. Additionally, without some kind of penalty to casting, there's absolutely no reason not to use Combat Spell instead of just casting, ever.
The magus needs better at 1st level. Spell combat would be better if you didn't start off in such a deep hole.
I somewhat agree here. A sub-par Spell Combat at low levels would be easier to swallow if Spellstrike was worth a damn.
I could see Combat Casting being a Magus Arcana choice, like Weapon Finesse for Rogues, as many individuals on the board have also suggested. But there needs to be penalties to use them and it should be necessary to cast defensively.
A ranger or rogue w/TWF still has to make two attack rolls. Should one attack be an automatic hit every round? Should any class be able to Power Attack or TWF w/o taking a penalty? Swing a sword or cast a spell once a round, no penalties. They are standard actions. Full-round actions have always been different. 6th level fighter gets 2 attacks; should both be at their highest bonus? No, the system (meaning 3.x) has a built in system of risk vs. reward when attacking. In every instance where an individual attempts to harm an enemy more than once in a single round, or to dramatically increase their damage potential, there is a penalty associated with it. Secondary attacks are a -5 per, TWF has it's own specifics, Rapid Shot, Power Attack, combat maneuvers, etc. There is a cost of penalties, feats, trade-offs, class features, spells, something you need in order to break the rules in this manner.
So why is Spell Combat singled out. Flurry of Blows is just as difficult at low levels. It is in fact nearly the same conceptual idea as Spell Combat. They both allow a significant increase in actions-per-round and both lessen the penalties as the character progresses. FoB only allows sub-optimal choices of weaponry while SC has a higher penalty associated with it. FoB gets better as the monk UA damage increases and the penalties dissipate. SC gets better as the penalties also dissipate and the spell potential goes up.
I don't see any reason SC shouldn't be just the way it is. Just as not every lvl 3 Monk is going to Flurry all the time, a Magus shouldn't be using SC all the time. But it is there if you want it, and sometimes you are going to really need it.
At low levels AC, hp, and quantity of spell slots are all very low. Why wouldn't a Magus, in melee combat, be casting defensively?Many reasons:
1. You're not threatened (or can 5' step to a square not threatened).
2. The enemy that threatens you has used his AOO this round.
3. Your AC vs his hit chance is sufficient for you to make this gamble.
4. The enemy is blinded or for some reason cannot take AOOs.Are but a few of the many reasons that you might not need/want to cast defensively.
1 - Then you are not likely in melee combat or are a whip Magus. A Magus taking EWP (Whips) at level 3 is already choosing to sub-optimal route.
2&4 - This is situational. When designing this ability I would do as they did and get rid of these situations3 - Yes, and if you fail you can die.
So why is Spell Combat singled out. Flurry of Blows is just as difficult at low levels.Nowhere near as difficult.
The 1st level monk takes a -1 to hit with flurry of blows and by 5th level takes no penalty to hit with flurry of blows. By 9th level the monk GAINES a bonus +1 to hit with flurry of blows.
The magus on the other hand takes a -4 penalty to hit at low levels!
-James
A Monk needs STR, DEX, and WIS to be effective in combat, otherwise they don't hit, get hit too often, or do very poor damage. A Magus needs STR and INT, and can self buff. So it is certainly much easier to make use of Spell Combat vs. FoB.
I view casting defensively as a necessary. It is just mislabeled. SC allows the Magus to do two very different things from very different fields of study. He should be forced to concentrate on casting his spell because at the same time he is waving around a bloody sword! He'd better concentrate. It just so happens that a preemptive concentration check before casting a spell is the same thing as casting defensively.
I can see some merit to this. The problem is, keeping with TWF, there's no spell roll to take a -2 to. Additionally, without some kind of penalty to casting, there's absolutely no reason not to use Combat Spell instead of just casting, ever.I don't see a problem with this.
The magus suffers a BAB penalty when compared to a NPC warrior class, let alone all the penalties when compared to a fighter. Beyond the apparent his physical stats are drained by an INT requirement.
The magus spell list is also quite pared down in comparison to a wizard, as is the magus number of spells per day.
The magus has constant penalties in comparison to either, that they could always elect to attack while casting doesn't seem to be a problem for me.
At low levels the mere number of spell slots will be the limitation. At high levels the magus automakes concentration checks and was getting the penalty removed anyway.. so why not do so at the start?
The magus has made its tradeoffs ahead of time.. they are permanent.. so I don't see a problem with them getting some return on that.
Run the numbers. Consider how few spells a 4th level magus has, and how little damage he does when compared to a fighter, a rogue or even a monk without using spell combat. Its really not an issue.
-James
So a Magus' handicap is that he's not gestalt? 3/4 BAB 3/4 Casting is the norm for other classes, how is the Magus at a disadvantage?
Edit: Unrelated, but any Magus can use a Mitral Light Shield and lose only 1/2 Str to damage. Not a bad tradeoff.
Pick someone and compare the magus to them.. say at level 4. I pick there as it's roughly in the middle of the level range for the magus having a -4 to hit.
The fighter outdamages the magus even during the scant few rounds that the magus can burn his spells via spell combat, while having a far higher AC and more hps to boot.
The rogue outdamages the magus when the rogue can achieve flanking and the magus is burning one of his, what, 4 first level spells? The rogue also sports an AC that the magus needs to burn another of his first level spells to achieve.
The monk compares nearly to the magus, except out-damages him as well. His hps and AC are comparable, but his damage exceeds the magus. Compared for standard actions, full attack actions not burning resources, and full attack actions burning comparable resources... it all favors the monk.
So I guess I'd say the magus is handicap'd by his set up.. yeah.
Remove the penalties on the attack roll and remove the forced concentration check on the magus, and I think its far more balanced. Sheer economics of his number of spell slots will keep this from getting out of hand.
Consider the magus needing to cast shield to achieve an AC that the monk gets via mage armor (lasting hours per level, or minimum an hour via potion/wand), the rogue walks around in, and the fighter only gets down to when flanked AND denied DEX. Is the magus realizing an advantage over any of these that he can do this while full attacking? I don't think so.. he's treading water and burning too much to do so.
Consider the magus needing to cast a shocking grasp spell to do damage. He can do so far less times in a day than the rogue can get sneak attack dealing an extra 2d6 with each attack (say two attacks a round via TWF). Moreover the magus even if concentration wasn't mandated at penalty, would likely have to make accommodations to do so and be able to full attack. He's similar to the monk here in that the monk needs to burn ki (which he has about as much as the magus can afford spells for shocking grasp) and possibly perfect strikes (weapon adept variant is easier to compare than other stunning fist variants). The fighter, of course, trucks on dealing damage without burning any resources.
Personally I think that the rounds where the magus burns spells for damage that he should slightly exceed the fighter in terms of damage rather than being significantly below him.
Run the numbers and tell me what you think,
-James
So Melee Classes with melee abilities and no spells are better at melee than spellcasters who don't get to count their spells. Hmmm.
A Magus can cast Shield. A Monk can't cast Mage Armour. A Magus can cast Blur or Mirror Image too.
A Magus can cast Bull's Strength and Enlarge person giving him more Str than a Ftr.
And that's just buffs. A 4th level Magus could also cast Web, Grease, Fog Cloud, or just Levitate out of reach and acid splash things to death.
Furthermore, why aren't we comparing the Magus to other 3/4 spellcasters? Or are all 3/4 spellcasters hopelessly nerfed?
So without a friendly Wizard, or spending a quarter of his WBL, a Monks AC is Trash. Nevermind that unless all your day's encounters are backed up on each other 1 hour and 1 min both = 1 encounter.
A Rogues AC is 4 armor + 4 dex = 18
A Magus' AC is 4 Armor + 2 dex + he can spend what he saved on his weapon on a +2 Mithral shield so... 18.
Still not to mention buffs and utilty gained by his spells.
A Magus' AC is 4 Armor + 2 dex + he can spend what he saved on his weapon on a +2 Mithral shield so... 18.
Great.. so 18AC and can't combat cast or in fact cast any somatic spells while using it without at least a DC 21 concentration check by needing to sheath his weapon. And I'm not sure what he's saved on his weapon.. as I'd still put the 2k gold into making the weapon magical first then adding a +1d6 elemental damage to it so that he can try to compete..
Meanwhile the rogue is a halfling with a 20DEX wearing a +1 mithril chain shirt so he has a 21AC.
-James
Mithral light shield has no ACP no ASF and leaves a hand free to cast, where's the problem?
And the Magus is an Elf with 16 Dex and +1 chain shirt. 20 AC and 1000 gold left over.
Sounds like a plan.
For the record, this suggestion was one of the very first things suggested in the playtest. Jason has already responded to it:
...
I see. This may be a something PF changed without actually changing the description of light shield.
The 3.5 Buckler made no specific mention of casting. In any case, a Light Shield still gives you a free hand, which is all you need to cast. It would seem they clearly changed the RAI without changing the RAW.Edit:
1. In 3.5 you could cast in a Light Shield, RAW
2. The RAW for a Light Shield is identical between 3.5 & PF
3. Therefore, you can cast in a Light Shield in PF, RAW.
(Though, it would seem, clearly not RAI)
Just Sayin'
Sounds like a plan.For the record, this suggestion was one of the very first things suggested in the playtest. Jason has already responded to it:
I hadn't seen this. I still agree with Jason.
|
...I see. This may be a something PF changed without actually changing the description of light shield.
The 3.5 Buckler made no specific mention of casting. In any case, a Light Shield still gives you a free hand, which is all you need to cast. It would seem they clearly changed the RAI without changing the RAW.Edit:
1. In 3.5 you could cast in a Light Shield, RAW
2. The RAW for a Light Shield is identical between 3.5 & PF
3. Therefore, you can cast in a Light Shield in PF, RAW.
(Though, it would seem, clearly not RAI)
Just Sayin'
Actually...no. Light shields did not allow your hands free to cast spell in the 3.5 FAQ. And between the time of the 3.5 FAQ and complete mage coming out, whole slew of character became rather useless. Clerics and paladins being the biggest hit by this. They "fixed" via a feat. Pretty dang clumsy to make a ruling that nullifies entire classes I know, but the folks at wizard did it.
To avoid this, JJ has said already that light shields leaves your hands free for casting in PF. Until the FAQ comes out, take that as the offical stance.
Actually...no. Light shields did not allow your hands free to cast spell in the 3.5 FAQ. And between the time of the 3.5 FAQ and complete mage coming out, whole slew of character became rather useless. Clerics and paladins being the biggest hit by this. They "fixed" via a feat. Pretty dang clumsy to make a ruling that nullifies entire classes I know, but the folks at wizard did it.
To avoid this, JJ has said already that light shields leaves your hands free for casting in PF. Until the FAQ comes out, take that as the offical stance.
Well... I stand corrected... and vindicated. All at the same time.
Neat.
Now if you will excuse me I need to make an addition to my house rules stating that transferring a weapon from one hand to another is a move action that can be performed as part of your movement if you have a BAB of +1 or higher to avoid confusion.
Ouch! I'm far more forgiving... it's basically like power attack. You can change how you're holding things once per round as a free action, and must do so before doing anything to which the decision is relevant.
|
|
Now if you will excuse me I need to make an addition to my house rules stating that transferring a weapon from one hand to another is a move action that can be performed as part of your movement if you have a BAB of +1 or higher to avoid confusion.
Umm so you want your clerics to be healbots by design and paladins can´t cast spells...is that it? Because that is what that ruling did in 3.5. Unless you wanna allow somatic weaponry feat and feat tax various classes/builds that is.