| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been wondering how people think a magus can fill the martial role. Those concentration checks are brutal unless you give yourself such a large penalty that your full-attack completely falls flat.
Is that another joke? Concentration checks auto-succeed by mid-game.
At 10th level, with we'll say 16 Int, the Magus has +10 from level, +3 from attribute, +2 from his 8th level ability, for a total of +15 to the check.He fails on a 1.
And this is a pretty conservative estimation as well.
By the time I was 10th level I had a 23 int I believe.And the +2 Concentration trait. So +20, and could happily cast 3rd level spells without fear of failure.
Idk how/why you had 23 int.
Wouldn't you want to pump str as a magus and let your int score go up because of items?
And I wish you the best of luck. I'm about halfway through the AP with my ranger/fighter with a reach weapon build (trip/combat reflexes/ and cleave) and I was killing 4-5 goblins a round during the initial chapter around Sandpoint. And I've played him at the same table with an alchemist and a wild-shaping druid w/ pounce and a pouncing AC. The both did quite well, but don't hit near as often as the 'pure' martial does...and hitting is important. When they need a 17+ to hit and I need a 11+ to hit, that adds up quick.
That druid is awfully built if he is 6 points below yourself in to-hit.
And after level 10 or so, casters can do all sorts of things that the physical types can't, but only if they have the spell available and the Caster check is made, SR overcome and/or saving throw failed.
The best spells ignore SR, save throw, or both.
Idk how/why you had 23 int.
Wouldn't you want to pump str as a magus and let your int score go up because of items?
Int gives you bonus spells, and extra spell slots are important.
Int gives you higher save DCs, and debuffing opponents before wading into combat was my shtick.Int gives you more skills, and skills can be useful.
Int gives you a bonus to knowledge checks.
I have a Dex magus, and his Dex was also 22ish. I think it's 24 now (level 13).
I bought a 15 Int (7 points), giving me a 17 at 1st level. I bought it up to 19, and had a +4 item.
Not hard.
For the record I think I averaged over 100 DPR on full-attacks at level 13, though I'll admit I'm not hyper-optimized.
EDIT: I stand corrected by Nicos
Ah I see, not a strength magus. Nor is your dex very high. By that level (13) it could stand to be 27.
Ah I see, not a strength magus. Nor is your dex very high. By that level (13) it could stand to be 27.
Even a STR focused Magus can pass his concentration checks by that level.
At level 10, with 16 INT, that's +10 from level, +3 from int, +4 Combat Casting, +2 Focused trait, +2 from Class Bonus, or +21. Which auto-pass any 3rd level spell, and get any 4th level spell with 2+. With 18 INT (not that hard at level 10 even as secondary stat), it's autopass for 4th level spells too, which is the highest level for a 10th level char.
Ah I see, not a strength magus. Nor is your dex very high. By that level (13) it could stand to be 27.
Sure, but then I couldn't have as high an INT. Or I would have had to tank something else. With 20 point buy, buying a single 18 is almost all your points. I went with S-10 D-16 C-14 I-15 W-10 Ch-8.
And the difference between 24 and 27 is just a +1, and since the Dex to damage isn't my primary source of damage (spells are, and Black blade enhancement bonus) I'd rather have more spells.
I tank pretty freaking well with Mirror Image and an AC of 29. (And by tank I mean deal and soak damage, because there is no "tanking"/aggro mechanic in PF).
To borrow a military term, it is most definitely a combined arms fight and the martials get better with buffs, and the casters do better when there's a martial there to protect them, exploit the gap they created, and take the buff they have to offer.
You mean like tanks that are protected by infantry?
Mostly they are the kings of the battlefield but sometimes infantry can threaten them and because of that infantry has to protect them.That's not to say that Infantry is useless but one on one they just can't match what a tank can to in a fight. And after the fighting is over it can still be more usefull than the lone grunt because they've got much more options.
To borrow a military term, it is most definitely a combined arms fight and the martials get better with buffs, and the casters do better when there's a martial there to protect them, exploit the gap they created, and take the buff they have to offer.You mean like tanks that are protected by infantry?
Mostly they are the kings of the battlefield but sometimes infantry can threaten them and because of that infantry has to protect them.
That's not to say that Infantry is useless but one on one they just can't match what a tank can to in a fight. And after the fighting is over it can still be more usefull than the lone grunt because they've got much more options.
More likely like infantry mop up the conquered terrain after the Airforce has destroyed everything.
Infantry is needed, but I wouldn't compare a single grunt with a F-22 Raptor.
Well, as a lot of people have stated, if you have a party of 3 wizards then you get utility out of a front-line combatant, for sure. But that doesn't mean a martial character, it likely means a druid or oracle that's built to be a front line combatant. The utility that the caster brings to the party vastly exceeds the utility that any martial does.
The analogy between real-life military and a game breaks down a bit when you consider that the game is much simpler-- whereas in real life you need to have a contingency plan for a million different outcomes, in D&D there are way fewer tools for the job and way fewer types of challenges that somebody could face. In PF casters can be infantry, engineers, and armor all rolled into one. Casters break the assumption of specialization that a theory like combined arms warfare assumes.
I've seen other casters dominate encounters and dominated encounters as a casters. I've also seen a martial character fail a will save and become dominated or not be able to do much because of their limited skill list. I've outdamaged fighters with spells plenty of times, and have been more difficult to deal damage to for a few levels now. The party paladin might do more damage than my wizard does more consistently, but at the same time his build is specifically designed to do nothing but damage-- and against non-evil creatures or non-smite targets my summons still do more damage and can absorb hits with impunity. And that's just one spell.
In my experience this is definitely not just theorycrafting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is... Summons answer literally every single one of those issues. No SR, no save, you can pick something your enemies aren't resist/immune, evasion doesn't apply. It also addresses Schrodinger by the fact that Summons have a ton of versatility baked directly in. Damage types, movement modes, spell-likes, spells, monster abilities, etc. None of that is my opinion, its simply how the game works. Your experiences may differ but that's really an issue with the people who play casters in your experiences.
Like i said, our opinions ( or assessments) are based on our experiences. Mine differs, and I disagree.
My most fundamental difference lies on two points:
1) spells in practice never go as well as theory says. SR/saves/ resistances/ immunities/ evasion; something often gets in the way of success.
2) schrodinger's caster- (i.e. - he could have handled this) too often the caster in practice doesn't have the right spell, or it's unwise to use it.
Well that's why casters tend to go for a variety of spells and prefer spells that are versatile and spells with SR/Yes and Two saves are big no no's in guides. The ones you want are the ones that are save for x but you still suffer Y, or set up the battlefield. So yeah, this.
Your experiences may differ but that's really an issue with the people who play casters in your experiences.
The point was not that Summon can out damage the Fighter. The point was that it was versatile enough to get around all the supposed issues with spells. Also, with the appropriate feat chain, Summons should be getting +2 to hit and damage and the summoner should be able to summon 1d3+1 or 1d4+2, which should result in a significantly higher amount of potential damage. Sacred Summons can make your summons a standard action, summoning doesn't break invisibility, and there are items that can quicken them in a pinch (Masters Staff of Necromancy is great for this). If I wanted a meat shield I'd have brought along a Druid who can hit harder than the fighter, has a higher AC, is more versatile and has full spellcasting.
Keep in mind Summons is just a good "default" versatile spell for a situation where the caster doesn't have the *perfect* spell they can sub in Summon Monster as a versatile back-up. Which frees up the Caster to use those *perfect* spells at the right time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I have a battalion of tanks, I would rather get a platoon of infantry, or engineers than another company ( 3x platoons) of tanks. The synergy (and diversity of capabilities) of the combined elements is greater than the sum of its parts.
And if my choices were a battalion of tanks, a squadron of airplanes, a unit of engineers, or a battalion of engineers driving flying tanks, I'm going to take the last one every time.
In DND speak...if I have a party of 3 mages, I get more (generally, in most cases) from bringing in another role (martial, cleric, or rogue) than I get from adding another caster.
A Cleric, yes, who is a caster. But not a martial, no way. A caster can fill their role. That's the core problem of the thread.
BTW- the accepted main effort in military planning is the maneuver element (ground forces capable of maneuvering to, engaging, and defeating enemy elements). Maneuver in the US military means infantry and armor. Armor goes no where without infantry, as it is too vulnerable without them. Infantry can operate without armor.
And yet, what if you had Armor that had the mobility of infantry? That's the problem, here. Spellcasters are not tanks, they are tanks with mounted artillery that can do everything an infantryman can do while also flying.
If you need, say a plumber, do you want the BEST plumber? Or do you want a mediocre plumber who's also a pilot and a soldier and a lawyer?
If you need, say a plumber, do you want the BEST plumber? Or do you want a mediocre plumber who's also a pilot and a soldier and a lawyer?
Depends if I can be reliably certain I will need to do nothing but fix pipes or if it's likely that I'll have to fly, fight, and litigate.
And honestly, which of the above the scenarios seems more likely in the campaigns you've been in.
(besides the fact that the plumbing is fixed either way)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you need, say a plumber, do you want the BEST plumber? Or do you want a mediocre plumber who's also a pilot and a soldier and a lawyer?
If you need someone that can handle plumbing, someone that can fly a plane, someone that can fight, and someone to speak in court, would you rather have a plumber, a pilot, a soldier, and a lawyer, or four plumber-pilot-soldier-lawyers?
Or how about this. You need a plumber. However, sometimes, the plumbing is high in the sky, sometimes the plumbing is in the middle of a battlefield, and sometimes the plumbing is underneath the judge's chair.
Would you rather have the BEST plumber who unfortunately discovers he can't get to the sky plumbing, he can't get through the ranks of infantry to get to the battlefield's shower stalls, and he can't talk the judge off the privy long enough to tighten the bolts, or, well surely you get the metaphor at this point.
If you have a plumber, a pilot, a soldier, and a lawyer, when there's a clogged pipe, you have one guy doing work and three guys sitting around bored. Maybe one of them can pass the proper wrench some of the time, but otherwise, they're dead weight. The plumber gets his turn to yawn, too, when it comes time to fly the jet or get that bill passed into law.
In my party, though, of four plumber-pilot-soldier-lawyers, all four players can contribute to every situation. Nobody is on their smart phone or distractingly chatting on the side about the latest comic to movie adaptation. Everyone is engrossed because everyone is relevant in every situation.
Look, I get your point that a specialist is better at their specialty than a jack of all trades, but the problem is, spellcasters are not jacks of all trades but masters of none. Spellcasters are jacks of all trades and master of any one they like. Prepared spellcasters are even worse, because they can change what trade they mastered from day to day, or even minute to minute (for a 5th+ level Wizard--15 minutes for the others).
If I need a flyer, fighter or litigator, I'll get specialists for those things.
To carry the metaphor through, in PF you either don't have a need for someone to do those things, or someone else who can already do it. What you DON'T already have is a plumber.
I don't see taking a jack-of-all-trades over a master as a wise choice when I have a need for a specific job. I prefer a team of specialists over a team of half assers.
Look, I get your point that a specialist is better at their specialty than a jack of all trades, but the problem is, spellcasters are not jacks of all trades but masters of none. Spellcasters are jacks of all trades and master of any one they like. Prepared spellcasters are even worse, because they can change what trade they mastered from day to day, or even minute to minute (for a 5th+ level Wizard--15 minutes for the others).
A caster cannot have the damage of a martial AND the to hit of a martial, for as many rounds as a martial. They can, at best, get close. And even if they did somehow find a way, it would be for a limited time.
Look, I get your point that a specialist is better at their specialty than a jack of all trades, but the problem is, spellcasters are not jacks of all trades but masters of none. Spellcasters are jacks of all trades and master of any one they like. Prepared spellcasters are even worse, because they can change what trade they mastered from day to day, or even minute to minute (for a 5th+ level Wizard--15 minutes for the others).A caster cannot have the damage of a martial AND the to hit of a martial, for as many rounds as a martial. They can, at best, get close. And even if they did somehow find a way, it would be for a limited time.
A 12th Level Druid will out damage (though not out-hit) a Fighter all day long, in addition to having a higher Armor Class, Pounce (Eat your heart out Fighter, no amount of Feats will get you this), full spellcasting, and an Animal Companion. The difference in hit is small and the Druid will be making more attacks than the Fighter thanks to pounce anyway. If you don't believe that this is imbalanced than I am uncertain what metric you are using.
I don't think it's imbalanced.
A Wild Shaping Druid won't beat a Ranger (FE), Paladin (Smite), or Barbarian (RAGE<INSERT WEAPON>POUNCE).
Fighter is not the bar one should use for balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah.
Don't get me wrong, they're the best at DEALING DAMAGE, just not at fighting, to steal a phrase from someone else.
Pounce, Natural Reach, better Saves, better speed, etc. are more important to a fight than a little extra DPR.
|
Paladins are not martial characters--I consider martial characters to be those with primarily (Ex) abilities, rather than spells, (Su) and (Sp).
Just wanted to comment on this tangent real quick. Nothing against mplindustries specifically, I just grabbed a post that looked succinct to quote.
For me, a martial class is a class that confers a Base Attack Bonus equal to its level. That includes Barbarian, Cavalier/Samurai, Fighter, Gunslinger, Antipaladin/Paladin and Ranger. Likewise, a caster class is a class that confers a Caster Level in that class equal to its level. That includes Alchemist, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Inquisitor, Magus, Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner, Witch and Wizard. Only Monk and Ninja/Rogue stand outside this scheme, mundane*, but neither martial nor caster.
*A classification that excludes all classes that grant a Caster Level while including all others, and thus includes Barbarian, Cavalier/Samurai, Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk and Ninja/Rogue. Note the significant overlap with "martial", and the near-perfect alignment with mplindustries' definition of "martial". Huh, I guess there was some point to quoting her/him after all.
If I need a flyer, fighter or litigator, I'll get specialists for those things.
To carry the metaphor through, in PF you either don't have a need for someone to do those things, or someone else who can already do it. What you DON'T already have is a plumber.
I don't see taking a jack-of-all-trades over a master as a wise choice when I have a need for a specific job. I prefer a team of specialists over a team of half assers.
You're still looking at things very 2 dimensionally. Even one dimensionally. You need martial characters to smash the monster in the face.
That's your fundamental assumption, and it's wrong.
You know what is about the most powerful combo I've encountered at mid-high levels? Summon Monster V to summon 1d4+1 Lantern Archons, Haste, and Inspire Courage (+3). We tore through an entire dungeon with a single casting of each of those spells, and our own personal Fly/Invisibility. At 11th level. In a published AP. With a grand total of 6 spell slots between 4 characters.
Now you might think "but Lantern Archons only do 1d6 damage, that's not as good as a fighter! lol weaksauce!" but you don't need a monster to be as good at stabbing as a fighter.
If you're a fighter, and your opponent has a high AC, what do you do? Hit harder? If you're a caster, you attack their weakness. Everything has a weakness: a low touch AC, a low Reflex save, inability to fly (that's basically auto-lose past level 9).
So stop looking at it as you've got a character whose job is "stab guy in face hard" because that's silly. You have 4 characters whose job description is "win fights by any means necessary", so why would you bring a guy along whose only skill is "swings a big stick"?
Especially when you have a spell that reads "summon guy with a big stick".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A caster cannot have the damage of a martial AND the to hit of a martial, for as many rounds as a martial. They can, at best, get close. And even if they did somehow find a way, it would be for a limited time.
This is true only in the imaginary world where there are infinite encounters a day and fighters don't get hit/have infinite HP.
I'd consider a Magus a caster. Mine has a +26 to hit at level 13 without short-duration buffs or other party support. When I crit (which I do ALL. THE. TIME.) with my main shtick it's >100 damage in a single hit. I'll admit, I can only do that so often, but I can do it probably 18 times a day without breaking a sweat.
Meanwhile my defenses are far superior to your average fighter. I fly all day, which means anything that doesn't I laugh at. In a pinch, I wind wall. Mirror Image and an AC of 32 means I rarely get hit anyway.
You're trying to paint this picture like fighters are experts at something. They're not. They're bottom of the barrel for martials.
Now Barbarian on the other hand, he has style!
A caster cannot have the damage of a martial AND the to hit of a martial, for as many rounds as a martial. They can, at best, get close. And even if they did somehow find a way, it would be for a limited time.
This is true only in the imaginary world where there are infinite encounters a day and fighters don't get hit/have infinite HP.
I'd consider a Magus a caster. Mine has a +26 to hit at level 13 without short-duration buffs or other party support. When I crit (which I do ALL. THE. TIME.) with my main shtick it's >100 damage in a single hit. I'll admit, I can only do that so often, but I can do it probably 18 times a day without breaking a sweat.
Meanwhile my defenses are far superior to your average fighter. I fly all day, which means anything that doesn't I laugh at. In a pinch, I wind wall. Mirror Image and an AC of 32 means I rarely get hit anyway.
You're trying to paint this picture like fighters are experts at something. They're not. They're bottom of the barrel for martials.
Now Barbarian on the other hand, he has style!
I thought that title belonged to the Core Rulebook Monk. Did something happen while I was gone?
You're right of course. I honestly forget monks are in the game sometimes.
It's probably best that way.
If you need, say a plumber, do you want the BEST plumber? Or do you want a mediocre plumber who's also a pilot and a soldier and a lawyer?
If I need a plumber I would like the best plumber. If I'm adventuring I'm likely to need a whole lot more than a plumber though. That train of thought is a bad one because it excuses a class being absolutely useless in some situations and endorces the idea that you should have 4 specialist who only ever run into things they specialize in. Someone has to bring the cleric and someone has to play the rogue, even though not everyone likes the rogue and cleric.
This is true only in the imaginary world where there are infinite encounters a day and fighters don't get hit/have infinite HP.
I'd consider a Magus a caster. Mine has a +26 to hit at level 13 without short-duration buffs or other party support. When I crit (which I do ALL. THE. TIME.) with my main shtick it's >100 damage in a single hit. I'll admit, I can only do that so often, but I can do it probably 18 times a day without breaking a sweat.
Meanwhile my defenses are far superior to your average fighter. I fly all day, which means anything that doesn't I laugh at. In a pinch, I wind wall. Mirror Image and an AC of 32 means I rarely get hit anyway.
You're trying to paint this picture like fighters are experts at something. They're not. They're bottom of the barrel for martials.
Now Barbarian on the other hand, he has style!
I'm not arguing for Fighters specifically, although I do like them, but for melee fighters known as martials.
If you're Magus is flying high over the enemy, then he's not doing a good job being a melee combatant.
You crit often either because you're extremely lucky, or you're Crit Fishing. Either way, a martial who is lucky or fishing could do the same damage you do.
Is 32 your AC without buffs? That seems high to me but even if I'm wrong, a level 13 NPC Fighter I found could hit you with at least 3 of his 4 attacks.
Your Magus also doesn't have infinite HP, and should have less than a martial due to HD alone.
If you're Magus is flying high over the enemy, then he's not doing a good job being a melee combatant.
Where are you getting this from? The point is that because he can fly he can overcome obstacles that the fighter can't, not that he's busy doing loops in the air while his friends are being stabbed...
Where are you getting this from? The point is that because he can fly he can overcome obstacles that the fighter can't, not that he's busy doing loops in the air while his friends are being stabbed...
I fly all day, which means anything that doesn't I laugh at.
Where are you getting this from? The point is that because he can fly he can overcome obstacles that the fighter can't, not that he's busy doing loops in the air while his friends are being stabbed...I fly all day, which means anything that doesn't I laugh at.
Because that means he's actually laughing while his friends are being stabbed? Whatever. I just don't like when people take an example and try and twist it into the worst thing possible.
I dunno. A big ass sword (or whatever) and the ability to wield it solves a lot of problems.
Because that means he's actually laughing while his friends are being stabbed?
When did I ever say that? What I said was "If you're Magus is flying high over the enemy, then he's not doing a good job being a melee combatant.".
A requisite of being a melee combatant is being in melee combat. Sure he can be doing stuff from range, in fact that's ALL he can do from the sky. The only person who suggested he's "actually laughing" is you.