Developer
|
Thoughts? I'm about to run a game with a magus and my cleric voiced concerns about the magus. I have never seen the class inlay so I don't know.
I've never seen one in longterm use. I played alongside one in a PFS module once, but nothing jumped out as overpowered there.
The class itself strikes me as balanced. What are the specific concerns?
Also, this topic might be better suited for general, advice, or the Magus Playtest section, as the Magus isn't technically RAW yet. Also the rules that have been released for it are the rules. Can't really balance them here.
If you have any questions on the way the abilities work, though, fire away. I (and the others) will give whatever help we can! :)
Personally I think the Magus is at just about the right power level. Its offensive capabilities never get out of hand without consuming resources. It can spike a little higher than others some, but uses alot to do so and can't do it for long. I feel it's strongest when laying down battlefield control spells and getting off a mediocre attack.
I have only played one at first level so far, and found it to be a nice experience. I can't slaughter anything like our barbarian, but daze + attack is a nice combiation for keeping an enemy stunlocked.
|
Developer
|
Sorry I'm a newb to these forums, my main worry is the spells ability to crit when chaneling it through ur weapon
Don't worry about it, just a suggestion for getting more people to see it who can help.
As for spell critting through the melee weapon, here's the text of the ability:
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon as part of casting this spell. If used with spell combat, this does not grant an additional attack.
I read this as:
1) Declare use of this ability.
2) Resolve melee attack (including critical hit)
3) Apply spell as if it touched, not as if it crit.
I see the spell going off after the crit, like a spell storing weapon, which does not crit with the spell when the weapon itself crits (unless I've missed some rule saying otherwise.) The text here seems clear to me. Attack, which deals damage as a normal attack, including normal critical damage the attack would otherwise deal. Then spell goes off. No crit possible on the spell.
Sorry I'm a newb to these forums, my main worry is the spells ability to crit when chaneling it through ur weapon
Overall, that is only a minor boost in power. The loss of things like Power Attack (3/4 BAB and no 2 handed weapon are serious hits) can be large hits to dpr. Even critting, it is not that much more than other classes, and they expended a consumable resource while doing it.
Sorry I'm a newb to these forums, my main worry is the spells ability to crit when chaneling it through ur weaponThoughts? I'm about to run a game with a magus and my cleric voiced concerns about the magus. I have never seen the class inlay so I don't know.I've never seen one in longterm use. I played alongside one in a PFS module once, but nothing jumped out as overpowered there.
The class itself strikes me as balanced. What are the specific concerns?
Also, this topic might be better suited for general, advice, or the Magus Playtest section, as the Magus isn't technically RAW yet. Also the rules that have been released for it are the rules. Can't really balance them here.
If you have any questions on the way the abilities work, though, fire away. I (and the others) will give whatever help we can! :)
While this will be a considerable damage spike, remember they still have to hit, a magus' chance to hit is far lower then a full martial character, and in play (I am playing one in a kingmaker game) it costs a fair amount of the magus' resources to keep anywhere near the heavy hitter characters in damage, and all the while if they just cast the spell (usually touch) they would have had much better chances to hit, where as with their weapon, they are a 3/4 bab character with very limited bonuses to hit.
Will it be a better fighter/caster then the cleric? Yes, but the cleric is also a considerably better caster.
Sorry I'm a newb to these forums, my main worry is the spells ability to crit when chaneling it through ur weapon
Don't worry about it, just a suggestion for getting more people to see it who can help.
As for spell critting through the melee weapon, here's the text of the ability:
** spoiler omitted **
I read this as:
1) Declare use of this ability.
2) Resolve melee attack (including critical hit)
3) Apply spell as if it touched, not as if it crit.I see the spell going off after the crit, like a spell storing weapon, which does not crit with the spell when the weapon itself crits (unless I've missed some rule saying otherwise.) The text here seems clear to me. Attack, which deals damage as a normal attack, including normal critical damage the attack would otherwise deal. Then spell goes off. No crit possible on the spell.
This is incorrect. In the magus playtest it has been clarified. The crit range of the spell is increased to the crit range of the weapon when using spellstrike.
|
I have only played one at first level so far, and found it to be a nice experience. I can't slaughter anything like our barbarian, but daze + attack is a nice combiation for keeping an enemy stunlocked.
I've played a magus for about 5 pfs scenarios now, and while at first glance it might have seemed a little much, I feel its pretty balanced. As others have said, to really shine it has to use resources. I've only got 3 first level spells, and I have to really be picky about when to use them. Daze is nice to have since you don't run out of cantrips, but remember that you can't keep the same target dazed. If you daze him once they can't be dazed for a minute after.
As for the crit the developers have stated that it does crit with the weapon. But on the downside it turns touch attacks into normal attacks at the same time, so while there's a possibility to have a better crit range, there's also a lower chance to hit with the spell too.
The Magus can be frighteningly good at novaing. The downside of novaing, of course, is you use up your limited resources very quickly.
Without using up these resources, the Magus' attacks are pretty lackluster. On the casting side you have a 3/4 progression with a spell list mostly centered around direct damage. So you have the potential to deal a lot of hit points, but your ability to bend the fabric of reality that most Wizards enjoy is lacking.
Basicly, your half as good a fighter as the fighter, half as good a caster as the wizard, but you have the ability to combine the to in a suprisingly effective manner. A limited number of times per day.
More than any other class, the Magus benefits from the 15 minute work day, if you can prevent this, the Magus shouldn't outshine the other characters at whatever it is they do best.
@damendred:
Just a little ingenuity on the GMs part. Things that keep the ball rolling:
- Time pressure
- Unexpected encounters and ambushes
- Locations with a no/low rest rate
Sorry I'm a newb to these forums, my main worry is the spells ability to crit when chaneling it through ur weaponThoughts? I'm about to run a game with a magus and my cleric voiced concerns about the magus. I have never seen the class inlay so I don't know.I've never seen one in longterm use. I played alongside one in a PFS module once, but nothing jumped out as overpowered there.
The class itself strikes me as balanced. What are the specific concerns?
Also, this topic might be better suited for general, advice, or the Magus Playtest section, as the Magus isn't technically RAW yet. Also the rules that have been released for it are the rules. Can't really balance them here.
If you have any questions on the way the abilities work, though, fire away. I (and the others) will give whatever help we can! :)
Anything that requires an attack roll can crit.
|
My Magus in Serpent Skull is still only level 2 as we've been under some time constraints. My Magus is strong but not over powered in the least. In the last game I tried twice to use Spell Combat and due to low rolls failed twice. That issue will resolve itself in the medium to high levels but the Fighter will be much better at pure damage at that point and the Wizard will be wrapping the fabric of reality around his finger like a scarf.
If you'd like to see the Magus in action a bit more, here is my Level 8 Arena test and my Level 12 Arena.
If you really want to avoid the 15 min work day then wand wielder can be quite usefull, especially with spells that don't scale in effect by their level (True Strike, shield, to name but two). I know I've mentioned this in other threads and been told that this Arcana is a trap, but I've found it quite usefull and fun to use.
Ah I see I'm a new dm any pointers on getting around that?Lol 15 min work day?Yup, adventure for 15 minutes (use all your resources in one or two fights) then rest. My 4e group has a habit of doing this occasionally... Though their current adventure doesn't really allow for it. :)
You don't necessarily have to always throw 4 encounters a day at a party, all you have to do is threaten them with it and they will learn to conserve resources. Throw one or two really nasty fights at them back to back on top of another fight. Hit them before they can withdraw from an area, maybe when they are collecting treasure, and then threaten them somewhere they don't want to withdraw from. Do this once or twice and it will have an impact.
My Saturday night game can go months with 1-2 encounter days, where no one novas, because the DM keeps up the threat of other encounters. It helps in our case that the party is not in a city, but instead a frontier colony, and that teleport can be off the table at times, but it has also become beaten in our thinking that we need to be careful, because there could always be that one more encounter around the corner.
Like last week where at level 13 we fought a CR 10 fight, CR 15 fight, then a CR 16 fight, then a CR 14 fight. The last three all but back to back to back. Got through it fine, because we didn't waste our resources in the first couple.
I have a 6th lvl magus in a Kingmaker campaign. The magus is as if designed for KM and Pathfinder Society, since the scope of these adventures is relatively short.
Even without novaing the magus can be quite deadly. Last session I used the empower magic (magus arcana) as I was critting on enemy with shocking grasp and power attack; 106 hp damage. On one attack.
A 6th level fighter could in the same situation have dealt (7 dice + 9 Str + 2 weapon spec. + 1 weapon training + 1 enhancement + 3.5 shock + 6 Power attack = ) 29.5 damage on average per attack. Easily 59 dmg on two hits; 88,5 on a normal hit and a crit; 118 on two crits.
The diference here is that the magus gets one shot at using empowered magic. Without it would only have dealt 86 dmg.
As you see with a bit of luck a well rounded fighter can match the magus. The magus can certainly boost damage further if novaing, but whereas the magus burns out quickly when novaing the fighter keeps delivering steady and solid damage.
The advantages of the magus can however be very circumstantial. Enemies with energy resistance/immunity can take the sting out of any magus, as can high SR.
Playing magus should be a choice made on flavor and playing style, not efficinecy or damage per round; other classes can match and beat the magus at that game.
Even without novaing the magus can be quite deadly. Last session I used the empower magic (magus arcana) as I was critting on enemy with shocking grasp and power attack; 106 hp damage. On one attack.
To do this damage you used not one, but two limited use resources. (Did you also use Arcane Weapon or Arcane Accuracy to improve your attack?) Plus you crit which happens MAX 25% of the time. That's highly situational.
Having crit with an empowered, intensified shocking grasp I can tell you it's an amazing sight. I can also tell you that in 10 levels it's happened exactly twice.
On the subject of spellstrike crits, they are better than EVERYTHING. However, everytime you spellstrike, you must use a limited resource. For every crit shocking grasp, you have 3-5 regular shocking grasps. Your Fighter is dealing 59 dmg on a full attack, while the spellstriking Magus is doing (3.5 dice + 4 Str + 1 enhancement + 3.5 shock + 6 Power attack + 21 (6 dice shocking grasp)= ) 39 dmg. The fighter can do this all day, but the Magus is limited.
In practice, the Magus can deliver when he needs to. With a little luck, he can sometimes even out damage the fighter. That crit isn't always there when you need it, so you an't judge based on it.
In practice, the Magus can deliver when he needs to. With a little luck, he can sometimes even out damage the fighter. That crit isn't always there when you need it, so you an't judge based on it.
I agree completely.
For a consistent bad-ass melee character you have to go with the fighter. The magus is good at taking the spotlight, but in general is weaker than core fighting classes like fighter, paladin and barbarian.
ty for all the great posts, here is a quick update. We played the first two sessions of my campagin last weekend and the magus felt in line with everyone else. We have the magus, alchemist, cleric, and my current npc a pally. I kept it action heavy for the first session and it was apparent from the getgo that the magus had to always keep resource management at the forefront of his thoughts so there wasn't a lot of bursting but more of an even spread of abilities
That's been exactly my experience GMing a magus in CoT--the player joined not long after Rev1 of the Ultimate Magic playtest started, and has played a magus non-stop since. I tend to run rather long adventuring days, so the party is well aware that an early nova will leave them frustrated often for multiple gaming sessions; thus, the magus thinks carefully about each spell or (far more) arcane whatchamacallit point he spends.
They never reach the full-on useless stage that an empty wizard or cleric presents, but they do have to choose carefully--more so than most classes, in fact (the ki-pool-esque mechanic is one of pathfinder's most limited resources).
FWIW, relative to the rest of the part (Fighter, Cleric, Sorcerer, Rogue) the Magus seemed underpowered in Rev1, and pretty much on the money for Rev3, even long term. The player has been happy, the party hasn't felt overshadowed, just enough damage has been traded for versatility, and resource management is key.
Caveat: as with any caster class, you'll see their power level rise rapidly if you run short adventuring days...but full casters typically blow the Magus and everyone else out of the water if they get to nova every fight.
If you really want to avoid the 15 min work day then wand wielder can be quite usefull, especially with spells that don't scale in effect by their level (True Strike, shield, to name but two). I know I've mentioned this in other threads and been told that this Arcana is a trap, but I've found it quite usefull and fun to use.
How on earth can anyone see it as a trap? It struck me as one of the better options for the magus.
If you really want to avoid the 15 min work day then wand wielder can be quite usefull, especially with spells that don't scale in effect by their level (True Strike, shield, to name but two). I know I've mentioned this in other threads and been told that this Arcana is a trap, but I've found it quite usefull and fun to use.How on earth can anyone see it as a trap? It struck me as one of the better options for the magus.
I wouldn't call it a trap, but it's usefulness is directly proportional to how much you use wands.
Some think wands are a terrific way to increase your spells per day, and think nothing of buying a 6,000+ GP Wand of Magic Missiles every couple of levels.Others think that wands should be limited to the few low level spells that are worth the steep (in their opinion) 750 GP price tag.
If you have a belt full of 2nd and 3rd level wands then, yeah it's great.
If the only wand you use is Shield, then there's better arcanas.
A wand of shield is great for a first wand, though as you would only be using it at maximum once per encounter it would indeed be a waste of arcana.
It's definitely a wasted arcana at the earliest levels. good thing there are better arcanas to take before, huh? :p
Being able to spam some blasting spell is invaluable in my book, though. A must have after level 6 or so.
I've delayed it until level 12 without too much issue... though I am wishing I had it now at level 10. Before now it really wasn't on my list of things I really felt I needed.
Level 3 -- Familiar
Level 6 -- Arcane Accuracy -- this was a huge boost, and still is... possibly too good considering it lasts for your entire round.
Level 9 -- Spell Blending -- Picked up Resist Energy and False life... kind of wishing I had grabbed touch of idiocy instead though... maybe ghoul touch. either way very nice spells to have.
I think if I had a staff by level 9 or thought one was in my immediate future I would have grabbed the wand wielder arcana.
It's definitely a wasted arcana at the earliest levels. good thing there are better arcanas to take before, huh? :p
Being able to spam some blasting spell is invaluable in my book, though. A must have after level 6 or so.
What blasting spells are you getting? If you get a wand of Shocking Grasp CL 5 it costs over 20% of your total WBL, and if you use it only twice per encounter, it will be gone well before you hit level 8. If you then but another wand, and if you want another level appropriate wand that 20% doesn't change much. A CL 10 Wand of Intensified Shocking Grasp costs 20% of your total WBL at level 10. If you keep buying and using up wands, by 20th level you could easily have spent 10-15% or more of your total WBL in wands you no longer even have. That's not a small margin to be behind.
Some simple math: At 20 encounters per level a 20 level campaign will have approximately 400 encounters. 300 of those will occur after Lv 5. If you buy, say, a CL 5 Lv 1 blasty wand for 3,750 gp and use, say, one charge per encounter, you'll need 300 charges or 6 wands over the scope of the campaign. That's 22,500 gp spent on wands. Assuming 5 encounters per day, you can match that with 5 Pearls of Power. That's only 5,000 gp. A bargain by the time you buy your second wand. Plus you don't have to spend an Arcana and your CL will keep going up. That helps with SR if nothing else.
Some slightly more complicated math will show that the number of times you use a wand per encounter has no bearing on the comparative. It simplifies to a ratio of spell level to caster level. Only a level 1 wand CL 1 will be cheaper in the long run than Pearls. Provided you use the wand at least once per adventuring day.
Wands do have the advantage that you have more versatility splitting up charges than Pearls. For example, with a wand you could use 9 charges one day and 1 charge the next, with 5 pearls, you get exactly 5 charges each day, use 'em or lose 'em. Wands also win on a short term basis. You could buy a wand, use up all the charges then not replace it. However, pearls can restore any spell you prepped, wands are limited to a single spell. and pearls scale with caster level, wands do not.
A spontaneous caster who can't use pearls has more use for wands. A prepared caster, like the magus, should only buy CL 1 LV 1 wands, of which there are several useful spells, but not, IMO, enough to warrant spending an Arcana.
I will admit that my analysis does not account for wands used via UMD. This takes two Arcanas; Wand Wielder and Broad Study. The DC 20 check can be hard to make reliably in combat, however. At least not without spending valuable build points, traits or feats in addition to arcanas and the price of the wands.
Quantum Steve you forget a few other cases where wands can be handy:
1. Spell you want to use frequently but don't care on caster level/ DC. (ex: shield, grease, infernal healing)
2. Nothing in wand wielder states you have to be able to cast the spell in the wand. Which means using wands of spells not on your list requires only wand wielder and use magic device.
3. Staves are a good use for this arcana.
Quantum Steve you forget a few other cases where wands can be handy:
1. Spell you want to use frequently but don't care on caster level/ DC. (ex: shield, grease, infernal healing)
2. Nothing in wand wielder states you have to be able to cast the spell in the wand. Which means using wands of spells not on your list requires only wand wielder and use magic device.
3. Staves are a good use for this arcana.
1. All of those are lv 1 spells which I stated make decent wands, I'm just not convinced there's enough of spells like these to justify spending an arcana. As for shield, at 1 min. this spell pretty much has to be cast in combat. So, either you spend a round casting it when combat starts, or you wait till you get into melee and possibly damaged so you can spell combat it. In either case your casting shield instead of something else. A level 6 Magus can cast a 12 min Extended (via Rod) Shield before combat and have a a good chance of it still being up when combat starts. A spell like shield just keeps getting easier to precast with a slot but a wand you have to use in combat.
2.
Wand Wielder (Su): A magus with this magus arcana can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat.
Wand Wielder doesn't say it ignores the general rule that spell combat only functions with spells from the magus list. Without an exception, the general rule stands.
3. I hadn't considered staves. I'll have to think about it. Single spell staves would certainly be the most cost efficient in terms of GP per charge, but also the most limited. Also, staves require several days of down time between adventures to recharge. If you were on a long adventure that lasted several days, staves would lose their usefulness.
Wand wielder states, "can activate a wand or staff"
Since activating a wand or staff has nothing to do with casting a spell the restriction of what sort of spell is gone.
Of course you still pay the normal costs... using the arcana, the cost of the item, the caster level, and DC of the spell, etc.
But activating a wand or staff wouldn't care about what staff is on the item since it isn't casting a spell.
Wand wielder states, "can activate a wand or staff"
Since activating a wand or staff has nothing to do with casting a spell the restriction of what sort of spell is gone.
Of course you still pay the normal costs... using the arcana, the cost of the item, the caster level, and DC of the spell, etc.
But activating a wand or staff wouldn't care about what staff is on the item since it isn't casting a spell.
So what other rules or restrictions not listed in Wand Wielder don't apply to Spell Combat? Or is this one just arbitrary?
Edit: A slightly less hostile argument:
If the restriction on spell list is gone would not the restriction on casting time also be gone? Since activating a wand or staff has nothing to do with casting a spell?
What would happen if you used spell combat with a wand of restoration? Or more reasonably, a wand of sleep?
"Activate a wand or staff" is not "cast a spell", thus it's not subject to the same restrictions. It's an entirely different beast because at no point it specifies it must be a wand of a magus spell.
If you have UMD to trigger, say, a wand of Shifting Sand, then you can Spellcombat it.
I'm honestly seeing more of Quantum's point now though... it is an interesting situation that is for sure.
|
|
I think its pretty strongly implied that the normal limitations of spell combat still apply when using a wand of staff. Sleep is a perfect example.
In any case, Steve's explanations of why Wand Wielder sucks is a much more intelligently written version of my original "Wand Wielder is a trap" diatribe. Wand Wielder is too costly for optimized Magi to use outside of a Monty Haul campaign.
Now, there's a chance that there will be some sort of cool archetype that really makes use of this Arcana well. But otherwise, just using a wand here and there when you need it and Pearls of Power ought to be sufficient.
Pearls are bad on action economy though -- takes a standard to use and you don't get anything out on that round.
Out of Combat? Sure a great buy. In combat? Wand is better on action economy, especially since wands don't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Staves are definitely the way to go for the wand wielder arcana, and even then only for extra options as opposed to using them for regular use.
Pearls are bad on action economy though -- takes a standard to use and you don't get anything out on that round.
Out of Combat? Sure a great buy. In combat? Wand is better on action economy, especially since wands don't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Staves are definitely the way to go for the wand wielder arcana, and even then only for extra options as opposed to using them for regular use.
Pearls aren't useful in combat, however, in practice I don't think I've once used up all my spells in a single encounter. That is to say, I've always have enough blasts or what have you prepped that I won't run out before I can restore them after combat.
Pearls aren't useful in combat, however, in practice I don't think I've once used up all my spells in a single encounter. That is to say, I've always have enough blasts or what have you prepped that I won't run out before I can restore them after combat.
No doubt, I'm just mentioning it as a general reminder. A staff is nice since it gives options -- maybe you really do want that one more fireball without burning up arcane pool points.
On the other hand having the arcane pool really does help the magus avoid some of the normal reasons to have a staff or wand in the first place.
I can't believe I'm suggesting this but perhaps it would be best if there isn't a feat to increase the amount of arcane pool points you have.
How does the class compare to it's cousin, the Inquisitor?
That is an intersting question. I am currently playing both an inquisitor and a magus in separate games both at low levels. So far one of the things I see is that the inquisitor gets more out of his skills (better skill list in my opinion) then the Magus, despite having a similar number of skill points (the magus is int based and the inquisitor is not).
The magus mixes casting and combat better with spell strike and spell combat. The inquisitor on the other hand has the advantage of the low level buffs that make 'battle clerics' a force to be reckoned with. Both have resources they have to manage and have to carefully track spell use to get through a long day. The magus seems to be able to bring more power to bear in the moment (using arcane pool points and spellstrike/spell combat) when going 'nova'. The inquisitor is more likely to last through several long combats since they are not able to nova as much as the magus is.
Personally I like the magus spell list better but thats pretty much all opinion. I like arcane casters, so I cant really be objective there.
Maybe I'm a bad person to make such judgements as my group is quite small, this means that the party wealth is divided amongst less people so we have more disposable income. It also means that we each have to cover several bases (my raven familiar is the party scout for the gods sake!). So we are also burning through whatever resources we can get hold of, which does kind of sum up the magus in a way.