Mr. green....TY, and i mean this.
Your post has caused a unanimous response from other which i never thought i would see on these boards.
(an actual debating of how ridiculous your theories are is not worth the time)
I am fascinated by this expose on the 'real problem'. Will this be a running series? Will you further tell us what the real issue is with alignment? What other gaming questions will you find a way to categorically answer with unjustified up assertions?
Are you perhaps familiar with a Philosopher by the name of Searle? I imagine you would enjoy his work.
Oh snap.
|
He's more right than wrong on this issue.
Unfortunately, the way the rules are written by Paizo, 1H does not output good damage. There is no good reason to use 1H weapons unless a shield is in the other. Since the magus cannot cast with a shield in hand, he doesn't get that benefit either.
If magus is getting the wizard nerf of not being able to cast well in armor/shield, he needs to get the good wizard spells also. Right now he doesn't have those.
And this was posted over a week ago, but people have decided to revive the thread.
He's more right than wrong on this issue.
Unfortunately, the way the rules are written by Paizo, 1H does not output good damage. There is no good reason to use 1H weapons unless a shield is in the other. Since the magus cannot cast with a shield in hand, he doesn't get that benefit either.
If magus is getting the wizard nerf of not being able to cast well in armor/shield, he needs to get the good wizard spells also. Right now he doesn't have those.
And this was posted over a week ago, but people have decided to revive the thread.
Except that the magus can use 2 handed weapons. He just can't do it while using spell combat. Wielding a scimitar in 2 hands is 1.5 average damage off a falchion. Or he can get the bennefit of a shield, just not when using spell combat. A buckler is only 1 AC worse than a large shield. He can even combine all 3 of these forms to suit what he needs, high damage output, AC, or a spell. With Arcane strike he can get a damage boost that most other classes cannot. And at many levels, his arcane weapon bonus will keep him in the same range as pretty much any other warrior.
He is proficient with all simple and martial weapons. I can easily see one carrying around a 2 hander for when he runs out of spells for the day, and using it as "back up".
He's more right than wrong on this issue.
Unfortunately, the way the rules are written by Paizo, 1H does not output good damage. There is no good reason to use 1H weapons unless a shield is in the other. Since the magus cannot cast with a shield in hand, he doesn't get that benefit either.
If magus is getting the wizard nerf of not being able to cast well in armor/shield, he needs to get the good wizard spells also. Right now he doesn't have those.
And this was posted over a week ago, but people have decided to revive the thread.
No one handed combat doesnt do good damage. People go 2handed or two weapon fighting for more damage or sword and board for better AC and possibly also two weapon fighting.
That is, if they are only fighting. A magus has the meager 1handed fighting AND spells when he spell combats. Cast a spell, and add to it a 1handed full attack. I would think a spell is worth a set of off hand attacks dont you? (depending on the spell choice ofcourse). The magus isn't all about damage (though a focus on evocation can quickly solve that).
And what are you talking about a wizard nerf? Maguses can cast in armor.
As to the OP, if you would instead of making blanket assertions present ideas (as ideas) and then back them up with logic, i would gladly respond in a more positive way.
|
|
The problem is the magus doesn't do damage, nor save or dies/sucks at the moment. If he did either one, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
Magus' big trick is to use Spell Combat. I think it's terrible design to force the class into 1H when trying to use Spell Combat. I recall if Paizo said a wizard with a 2H weapon as arcane bond needs to make a concentration check. This is similar. It's unnecessarily restrictive for no reason other than as a restriction. The class is suppose to be good at using Spell Combat, so let him be good at it.
Paizo seems to have a knack of using bad examples to represent what they wish to explain. They have great ideas, but the execution has been poor sometimes. They need to decide what they want a magus to be able to do, because in most cases, most playtesters have said the magus is lacking in power. Using 2WF is odd, since this is an unique ability, and should be treated as such, instead of pushing it into 2WF.
What's also weird is that Paizo wants players to have options, but this forces the magus into a very limited build. Fluff reasons for balance usually aren't very legit because fluff is arbitrary. Mechanical balance make more sense because it actually messed up the game. A magus cannot keep up in damage with a bard, so that's a legit reason on why a magus should be able to use weapons 2H while in Spell Combat. What if a magus can only whips? Why? Because the designers said so. Forcing specific builds are realms of prestige classes, not base classes.
The problem is the magus doesn't do damage, nor save or dies/sucks at the moment. If he did either one, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
Magus' big trick is to use Spell Combat. I think it's terrible design to force the class into 1H when trying to use Spell Combat. I recall if Paizo said a wizard with a 2H weapon as arcane bond needs to make a concentration check. This is similar. It's unnecessarily restrictive for no reason other than as a restriction. The class is suppose to be good at using Spell Combat, so let him be good at it.
Paizo seems to have a knack of using bad examples to represent what they wish to explain. They have great ideas, but the execution has been poor sometimes. They need to decide what they want a magus to be able to do, because in most cases, most playtesters have said the magus is lacking in power. Using 2WF is odd, since this is an unique ability, and should be treated as such, instead of pushing it into 2WF.
What's also weird is that Paizo wants players to have options, but this forces the magus into a very limited build. Fluff reasons for balance usually aren't very legit because fluff is arbitrary. Mechanical balance make more sense because it actually messed up the game. A magus cannot keep up in damage with a bard, so that's a legit reason on why a magus should be able to use weapons 2H while in Spell Combat. What if a magus can only whips? Why? Because the designers said so. Forcing specific builds are realms of prestige classes, not base classes.
It isnt fluff that is the cause of the balance. It's mechancal reasons. The point here is the magus isnt supposed to overshadow either fighting types or casting types. The niche is in between. This means neither spell casting nor combat will be as good as those who specialize in it but he gets to do both in the same round.
A magus carves out his own niche and indeed can keep up and surpase a bard in damage (a 1handed full attack + a scorching ray for instance will do more damage then a bard can at most levels). It wont however outstrip a fighter in combat. If you allow the more effective forms of combat (2handed fighting or two weapon fighting) AND allowed him to cast a spell in that same round the class would be too powerful compared to other classes.
The spell you can cast more then makes up for the the lack of an offhand weapon. In playtests the magus wasnt a major damage dealer but he could do things i've never done with a character. He could do some damage, and then put out buffs or battlefield control in the same turn, being extraordinarily flexible and effective in combat. In fact I think a magus is probably one of the few classes that could be a solo villain for that reason.
Does spell combat need tweaking? Yes and its clear enough Jason intends to do that from his comments on know direction, but the general idea behind spell combat is solid and unique.
|
The original post actually made me laugh out loud. My hat off to you, sir, for truly embodying the trollish ideal.
As others have mentioned, it appears that Jason is aware that the class needs some tweaks. That's why it was posted and subjected to testing. However, you appear to have a tenuous (at best) grasp of how Pathfinder, and roleplaying games in general, work.
In my playtest of the class, I chose to go with a longsword which could be used two-handed on turns when he opted not to use Spell Combat. The result was a level 5 character who averaged slightly more damage than the party rogue in a given combat, after considering that the rogue takes a round or two to get into sneak attack position.
I won't go into deep detail though, because the OP of this thread hardly encourages real discussion.
In fact I think a magus is probably one of the few classes that could be a solo villain for that reason.You're funny.
I have been told I have a good sense of humor. Thanks :)
|
|
Something different isn't suppose to make up for lack of power. True Name magic and Soulknife do something different as well, but they aren't very good.
How did the fighter improve from 3.5 to PF? He got lots of little pluses like Armor Training, Weapon Training, and the PF engine's increase of feats. What I firmly believe is that the magus does not have enough of class features similar to all those little pluses. Like 2H damage, or -4 to attack when using Spell Combat, -2 to Concentration check with Spell Combat.
What would help? I think 2H damage. Lack of penalties to attack roll and Concentration checks during Spell Combat. Spellstrike being way better. Slightly more spells. Better and more uses of Magus Arcana. These would give enough little pluses to help the magus while still being a gish, as opposed to stepping on the toes of fighters and wizards (except that a wizard never gets his toes stepped on, he's top 3 strong class in game).
I still think Sudden Quicken as a class feature 1/day every 4 levels is perfectly fine. Easier mechanic to deal with, and balance can be handled through more/less uses of it X per day every Y levels.
Sudden quicken 1/day every 4 levels, really limits the amount that a magus can use spells and weapons in the same round. Doing both is the unique and exciting part about the class. A caster that doesn't provoke AoO takes away the need to 5' step to cast which become impossible when facing monsters with reach. The -4 to hit is really tough to get over considering the already lower BAB, but the -2 to concentration is nothing. Combine caster level, a decent INT score, with combat casting and the focused mind feat and your concentration check is pretty good.
beisdes the penalty goes away at 8th level for the concentration check, and the attack bonus gets cut in 1/2. it wont be aproblem to get a concentration check where your modifier = the dc.
|
|
Sudden quicken 1/day every 4 levels, really limits the amount that a magus can use spells and weapons in the same round. Doing both is the unique and exciting part about the class. A caster that doesn't provoke AoO takes away the need to 5' step to cast which become impossible when facing monsters with reach. The -4 to hit is really tough to get over considering the already lower BAB, but the -2 to concentration is nothing. Combine caster level, a decent INT score, with combat casting and the focused mind feat and your concentration check is pretty good.
beisdes the penalty goes away at 8th level for the concentration check, and the attack bonus gets cut in 1/2. it wont be aproblem to get a concentration check where your modifier = the dc.
Maybe I should have rephrased it.
I think using Quickened Spell as a base is better and more logical than using 2WF. I just think the penalties on Spell Combat are unnecessary because the magus will probably end up with good buffs, but not good Save or die/suck or blasting. Quickened buffs aren't usually a huge problem. Frankly, even blast spells are okay. Only Save vs Die/Sucks become really powerful Quickened.
People that are unable to comprehend anything deeper than saves and initiative are the primary reason I have had the fun of helping 9 DMs TPK using CR-2 encounters.
My hat is off to you, he who gives me imbeciles to laugh at.
CR 2 encounters against what level party, and conditions? I can kill party with a CR 1 encounter in the first circumstances.
CR 2 encounters against what level party, and conditions? I can kill party with a CR 1 encounter in the first circumstances.People that are unable to comprehend anything deeper than saves and initiative are the primary reason I have had the fun of helping 9 DMs TPK using CR-2 encounters.
My hat is off to you, he who gives me imbeciles to laugh at.
CR -2 I believe was his intent. Monster hoards that are 2 levels below what the party should be able to face.
I'm not sure why people are upset with the OP. He stated the facts very clearly and correctly. The magus is a square peg trying to fit in a round hole.
I take the op to mean, that the basics mechanics of the class needs to be rebuilt. I think he is correct, as it stands the class is for the lack of a better word silly.
There is nothing wrong with tearing up your first idea and starting over from scratch, absolutely nothing. nor does the love of a game prevent valid criticism of the said game.
I'm not sure why people are upset with the OP. He stated the facts very clearly and correctly. The magus is a square peg trying to fit in a round hole.
I take the op to mean, that the basics mechanics of the class needs to be rebuilt. I think he is correct, as it stands the class is for the lack of a better word silly.
Why are people upset with the OP? Because a one-handed evocation mage is a perfectly valid and playable setup.
Now, I can't comment on the Magus itself, having not playtested it yet. However, I recently played an Eldridge Knight in Pathfinder (first level fighter, Evocationist Wizard thereafter until I met the BAB requirement). I had a Bastard Sword as my bonded item, and my Fighter Feat was Exotic Weapon so I could use it one handed when necessary.
My character was an unstopable killing machine. I made the melee and full spellcasters alike with their builds were as good as mine.
So yes, I am rather annoyed with the OP's statements about my build. As I said, I can't comment on the Magus specifically, but the OP attacked one-handed Evocation users. Because, clearly, the build does work.
|
|
I'm not sure why people are upset with the OP. He stated the facts very clearly and correctly. The magus is a square peg trying to fit in a round hole.
I believe the reason is his comment of "So the only practical way to fix it is to focus on what does work in D&D. Two handed weapons, save or lose spells. Less direct damage, more buffing action."
Which states boldly that that is the only way to play the game, and this is not so, as I have seen many other builds, played many other builds, and have helped with many successful games that have not had any of those builds in them, and have, personally, taught DM's how to counter those builds with very weak (compared to the party's level) encounters (CR -2 to -4), and forced the players to think differently and actually play.
I'm not sure why people are upset with the OP. He stated the facts very clearly and correctly. The magus is a square peg trying to fit in a round hole.
I believe the reason is his comment of "So the only practical way to fix it is to focus on what does work in D&D. Two handed weapons, save or lose spells. Less direct damage, more buffing action."
Which states boldly that that is the only way to play the game, and this is not so, as I have seen many other builds, played many other builds, and have helped with many successful games that have not had any of those builds in them, and have, personally, taught DM's how to counter those builds with very weak (compared to the party's level) encounters (CR -2 to -4), and forced the players to think differently and actually play.
Pretty much.
|
|
CR -2 I believe was his intent. Monster hoards that are 2 levels below what the party should be able to face.CR 2 encounters against what level party, and conditions? I can kill party with a CR 1 encounter in the first circumstances.People that are unable to comprehend anything deeper than saves and initiative are the primary reason I have had the fun of helping 9 DMs TPK using CR-2 encounters.
My hat is off to you, he who gives me imbeciles to laugh at.
What Caineach said.
Also CR -0 actually should only take 30% of resources for a non-conservative party. And 15 for a conservative party.
YOU fail to understand that not every game is played as a DPR rush and people are able to think outside the box to make some character concept work.
Moreover, it's quite the opposite of what you said. Your way of thinking is "this does not happen in my games, so it's wrong".
And "pewpewpew = fail" does not belong to "constructive criticism". Try again.
|
The original post actually made me laugh out loud. My hat off to you, sir, for truly embodying the trollish ideal.
As others have mentioned, it appears that Jason is aware that the class needs some tweaks. That's why it was posted and subjected to testing. However, you appear to have a tenuous (at best) grasp of how Pathfinder, and roleplaying games in general, work.
In my playtest of the class, I chose to go with a longsword which could be used two-handed on turns when he opted not to use Spell Combat. The result was a level 5 character who averaged slightly more damage than the party rogue in a given combat, after considering that the rogue takes a round or two to get into sneak attack position.
I won't go into deep detail though, because the OP of this thread hardly encourages real discussion.
You averaged slightly more damage than the class that got nerfed the hardest in PF... and you're bragging about this? Even after acknowledging their gimped into uselessness status?
That thing you're looking at? It's called a mirror.
Um, how on earth did the rogue get nerfed? that's the most bizarre statement I've ever heard. Their primary ability got bumped to affect almost every creature type, their important skills all got consolidated so that they can put more ranks in less rouge-y skills, and they got added abilities and more HP, so in what way were they nerfed. I've seen a rogue in pathfinder and I've seen a rogue in 3.5, I don't see in what way they were nerfed so please explain your statements instead of just making stuff up.
Once again, Mistah Green, you are far, far away from the whole view of things.
Take a look in the combat feats, in the class features of both rogues and other meleers. You will see that the flank/SA and no-dex/SA has shifted more to teamwork but is still there.
Even more with APG. Moreover, Minor Magic and Major Magic can bring in neat tricks. Rogue talents too, if well played.
Take a look in tha APG. See what a rogue can do with a cavalier. See dirty trick.
If you don't bother to find new combos, does not mean that aren't there.
You are only saying that old tricks are no longer there. It does not mean nerf. Say nerf it's approximate or even disingenuous.
I, too, am really curious as to *why* the rogue class was singled out as "the biggest nerf" or whatever. I mean ... Barbarians were easily overshadowed/abused in the conversion, and bards seem to have lost a step or two on their song-stuff, but rogues? Every touch of the proverbial Paizo paint brush just brought them up, up, and up! Higher HD = win; more unique class features = win; Skill Consolidation = win; Using SA on nearly *all* enemies = too much of a win (IMO anyway - different thread for that, though). So ... yeah I really can't even IMAGINE what he's thinking about Rogues ... they're probably the most fun upgrade in PF outright.
Spell-based comparison ... really? *shakes head* That's ... just not what they're for in the first place. They are the *real* all-day long class-feature users - their class features (mostly being on/off sorts of things) are fully usable just about anytime they want to use them. Spells - even/especially through wands, etc are LIMITED resources. You can cast invisibility like crazy, memorize it/whatever ... OR you can let the Rogue w/a +CRAZY HIGH skill ranks go off and save your resources for something YOU are better at (like casting offensive or defensive magic, and NOT trying to do everyone's job for them).
Can a spell-caster take on the jobs of rogues? Sure - absolutely. The spells are all there (more or less for similar effects). Is this a "good" use of your casting abilities and/or party role? Hell no! Well .. not unless you're doing some Harry Potter-type game and EVERYONE is a wizard, in which case the "role" is now defined by your prepped spell lists and/or wand-type resources (ie: this is the only conditions under which I would consider this an acceptable investment of resources to take on a Rogue role since there *is* no rogue class in the dang game in that situation).
Now - for the rest of the criticism: it's criticism - how is it all "irrelevant" when he's making points? Nothing he points at as being a "d&d-ism" is untrue in the least (at least not PF-wise rules/3.5/whatever).
I'm not a fan of DPR as the only *possible* measure of relevance in the game. The contribution of a class like this is more than just #'s in damage, it's also the occupation of space on the field and effects in play. For instance, the magus, w/say mirror image and blur/displacement up and running in the front line has the wonderful effect of engaging all enemies that want to fight him with the chance of literally making "wasted" attacks - any swing that misses from concealment is a full on attack resource wasted on the enemy side, and a potential "hit" that's negated against the side of the PC's. There IS no solid value to this in DPR terms, but it's a significant value brought to the combat by the class. Likewise, field-control spells are damn useful, yet again, tend to have no real DPR value associated with them.
I'm with the OP, though, generally - the magus needs some revision big-time, AND there's nothing wrong with "going back to formula" (cool points for those that get the reference) when you notice something is just not working the way you would like it to.
Is not a matter of relevance. It's a matter of how you put things in the discussion.
Say: THIS way of SA of the rogue has be nerfed is one thing.
Say: rogue has been nerfed is another thing.
And seriously, if one states and re-states the same things over and over in several threads, with the complete disrespect of other people point of view, no surprise if people stop to take him seriously.
How can I take in great value his opinion about a class, if i see him completely disregard a lot of elements in adjudicating a supposed nerf of another class?
he said "hi welcome" to lastknightleft BECAUSE DISAGREED WITH HIM.
Not in D&D it isn't. Two negatives do not equal a positive, and one handed weapon = fail and pewpewpew = fail.The rest of your post is 'I don't like it, so it's wrong' which is stupid for obvious reasons.
Wow. Wow.
I spent a whole, quite detailed post explaining that the build did work. I gave examples of what I did, and stated that in a D&D game that I actually played in it was perfectly effective. The point being that since it DID work, your statement that in D&D it can't work is clearly wrong.
Perhaps the build doesn't work in YOUR gaming group. Fine. That doesn't mean it is a bad build in another group. Like, for instance, a group where the Rogue doesn't think Blinking makes him invisible. Really, who the hell EVER thought that? I can't imagine that being allowed in 3.5 - it makes no sense at all. But defending the Rogue (really? so you needed a spellcaster in 3.5 to play a good rogue? insane.) is not my issue with you.
You are disrespectful, sir. You made a blanket statement that perfectly viable builds were unplayable. You are clearly wrong, since many people here agree that these builds (the one-handed evocer and the rogue without spell buffs) is perfectly workable. These people aren't spinning theories, they are presenting you with information about characters that they have played or played with in previous D&D games. You can't simply pretend they don't exist. And if you attempt to, you're only proving how much of an idiot you are. Do you really want all these people to think you're an idiot? No? Good. Try respecting someone else's opinion for change.
Your so wrong and full of bull it hurts. You keep saying you may only play a class one way, and only that way is correct. This is just simply incorrect.
|
|
Your so wrong and full of bull it hurts.
Not really.
Once I found out Blink doesn't work anymore, I raged and raged. And then stopped playing a rogue for damage output. Paizo gave some fun stuff for them, but it doesn't take away the fact that not having Blink triggering Sneak Attacks SUCKS MAJOR BALLS.
Once I found out Blink doesn't work anymore, I raged and raged. And then stopped playing a rogue for damage output. Paizo gave some fun stuff for them, but it doesn't take away the fact that not having Blink triggering Sneak Attacks SUCKS MAJOR BALLS.
Blink always seemed so sub-optimal to me because it gave you a miss chance. Good for some things you can't really sneak another way but not your first choice.
But I'm also used to playing with the kind of people who take a team-based approach and it's just sort of expected that, as a group, there will be a plan (and probably several) for how to get the rogue SA'ing, whereas I feel like some people (not BYC specifically, I don't know enough to say) approach a character like it's a solo adventure character that they just happen to be playing with three or four other people.
This too shall pass...
This whole discussion reminds me of the QQ you see on any major MMO's boards when the dev's make changes to the combat system. Every so called "l33t" player puts on sackcloth and gnashes their teeth at how wronged they've been, the dev's hate them and their favorite classes are now unplayable...till they figure out how to tweak the new system to their liking, and realize the changes are better.
Quit it with the QQ and L2P.
If I follow the thrust of JB's latest podcast, the concentration penalty is gone, and the penalty to attacks disappears at 8th level as it's being lowered by 2 across the board.
Where can one find Jason's podcasts by the way?
|
|
Is not a matter of relevance. It's a matter of how you put things in the discussion.
Say: THIS way of SA of the rogue has be nerfed is one thing.
Say: rogue has been nerfed is another thing.
And seriously, if one states and re-states the same things over and over in several threads, with the complete disrespect of other people point of view, no surprise if people stop to take him seriously.
How can I take in great value his opinion about a class, if i see him completely disregard a lot of elements in adjudicating a supposed nerf of another class?
he said "hi welcome" to lastknightleft BECAUSE DISAGREED WITH HIM.
Yeah, but I've been here waaaaaaay longer than him and am much funnier when I want to be, so I just intentionally took it as him welcoming me to the discussion, although I'm 90% sure (no way to be 100% sure as this is the internet and he could have been doing exactly what I decided to treat it as) he wasn't. In the end I decided to keep it respectful and just disagree, this is an internet discussion about a fantasy roleplaying game (serious business folks), if that's something to get catty over then the world has no hope. Not to say I've never gotten heated over a discussion of mechanics, I went balls to the wall trying to make sure the paladin didn't wind up like the crapfest that 3.5 made him. but whatever, it's all gravy.
|
|
Once I found out Blink doesn't work anymore, I raged and raged. And then stopped playing a rogue for damage output. Paizo gave some fun stuff for them, but it doesn't take away the fact that not having Blink triggering Sneak Attacks SUCKS MAJOR BALLS.Blink always seemed so sub-optimal to me because it gave you a miss chance. Good for some things you can't really sneak another way but not your first choice.
But I'm also used to playing with the kind of people who take a team-based approach and it's just sort of expected that, as a group, there will be a plan (and probably several) for how to get the rogue SA'ing, whereas I feel like some people (not BYC specifically, I don't know enough to say) approach a character like it's a solo adventure character that they just happen to be playing with three or four other people.
I rarely optimize. I just didn't like the fact the only roguish character in the party can't get SAs if I had to do it by myself. My party rarely gets to SA anyways since my DM insist on our party always being outnumbered, so I can't flank anybody without being flanked by 3 other things. And he doesn't really give out magic items.
He makes up for it by telling a good story usually, but mechanically it's frustrating. If we're losing too hard, he deus ex the challenge away.