28 days, 400 gp each day, for a total of 11.200 gp (I assume he will make all the check withe ease) to...Wow. So 11,000g and a month of time...assuming you make the rolls, for a spell that's in no way more powerful than others of its level?
They really don't want people using Spell Research...
They just want to discourage me-too spells, which I think is reasonable. You don't research spells unless there's something that isn't available as "others of its level."
In this case, you're spending about 5000gp per feat to save yourself having to spend your extremely limited feat slots on Intensify and Empower. This is about the price of a magic item that grants a feat, or about half the price of a slotted magic item that grants the feat, a little more than the equivalent metamagic rod would be (but of course, this can be used as many times per day as you like).
But, of course, it's limited to a single spell.
So the price seems reasonable, possibly a little overpriced in my opinion, but I'm not the one who feels a burning need for this spell.
|
28 days, 400 gp each day, for a total of 11.200 gp (I assume he will make all the check withe ease) to...Wow. So 11,000g and a month of time...assuming you make the rolls, for a spell that's in no way more powerful than others of its level?
They really don't want people using Spell Research...
Researched spells are not supposed to be more powerful.
They allow a caster to address specific areas that preexisting spells do not.
For Example: I want to research a spell that changes my sword into a force weapon for 1 round/level.
I would present the spell to the DM, we would discuss the power level and ramifications of the spell and we would mutually agree on an appropriate level for the spell.
It's not a nerf to dpr because it's not taking anything away that the magus had by the rules. For straight melee combat he gets everything any other meleer gets. Spell Combat simply is not straight melee combat.
And quite frankly if you're not doing fantastic burst damage with your magus that shows he needs no further help in the melee department, you're doing something wrong.
Except, ya know, that it IS. Being able to utilize haste with spell combat was part of the rules. While I understand James Jacobs isn't the rules guru, this is the only official response to the quandary I could find before the recent ruling.
You can change the rules of the game, but you can't retcon reality; hundreds if not thousands of gaming tables were running it as an additional attack with the blessing of the development team. The new ruling is indeed a NEW RULING and a change to the status quo.
You're insisting that we've always been at war with Eastasia, when we have not.
It's not a nerf to dpr because it's not taking anything away that the magus had by the rules. For straight melee combat he gets everything any other meleer gets. Spell Combat simply is not straight melee combat.
And quite frankly if you're not doing fantastic burst damage with your magus that shows he needs no further help in the melee department, you're doing something wrong.
Except, ya know, that it IS. Being able to utilize haste with spell combat was part of the rules. While I understand James Jacobs isn't the rules guru, this is the only official response to the quandary I could find before the recent ruling.
You can change the rules of the game, but you can't retcon reality; hundreds if not thousands of gaming tables were running it as an additional attack with the blessing of the development team. The new ruling is indeed a NEW RULING and a change to the status quo.
You're insisting that we've always been at war with Eastasia, when we have not.
Semi true. The RAW was never clear enough before (or rather, it seemed counter intuitive to the RAI) and this clarified it, so it isn't a new ruling it's technically a first ruling. Nothing of the writing was changed, and Haste always said Full Attack which Spell Combat isn't ever said to be in the rules.
However the (yes, probably vast) majority of tables, and IIRC PFS, assumed the RAI was 'Haste works with spell combat'. It was just what people did. There was A Lot of anecdotal evidence (the arcana, the spell being on the magus list, the cantrip rulings), and a strong arguement can be made it was always RAI... just not RAW.
I strongly suspect, given how long things went as they did, this was a backdoor nerf by FAQ to the Magus but, while I disagree, I don't think it was class ruining and I can also see how strictly it IS the RAW.
As others have pointed out, a Magus gets a lot of utility compared to it's 'competition' for group role. It's got some strong abilities, and 2-3 good to great archtypes that can improve it even more [I think Hexcrafters are better at hexing than Witches, giving to their far safer time being within hex range], so I'm (*lol* a bit begrudginly) going to trust the Paizo devs view on what the rule should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what a lot of miss is that there is are lot of Magus builds. Some are weaker then is ideal, some a stronger then ideal, and a most some place between. If you get used to strong ones limits sound great, if you are used to weak ones they sounds stupid. Just a thought.
Agreed... same problem I see with nerf Summoner stuff. Some builds/archtypes outpace others.
I may have missed it earlier in this thread, but anydone done the math on what % of a Magi's damage the FAQ said no to? Say at L10-12'ish. I was guessing 10-15% (5 attacks would be 20% each, but the Magus first attack is worth double or more the damage, so I figured a rough guesstimate of losing one normal swing, albeit at the highest atack value, was 10-15%)
|
It's not a nerf to dpr because it's not taking anything away that the magus had by the rules. For straight melee combat he gets everything any other meleer gets. Spell Combat simply is not straight melee combat.
And quite frankly if you're not doing fantastic burst damage with your magus that shows he needs no further help in the melee department, you're doing something wrong.
Except, ya know, that it IS. Being able to utilize haste with spell combat was part of the rules. While I understand James Jacobs isn't the rules guru, this is the only official response to the quandary I could find before the recent ruling.
You can change the rules of the game, but you can't retcon reality; hundreds if not thousands of gaming tables were running it as an additional attack with the blessing of the development team. The new ruling is indeed a NEW RULING and a change to the status quo.
You're insisting that we've always been at war with Eastasia, when we have not.
There was a lively discussion about that between gamers before the ruling, and a lot of people pointed out that it wasn't a full attack, so haste didn't applied. In one thread i parsed the people was divided approximately 8 in favor of haste+spell combat, 4 against. The "in favor" group included a guy that did say that haste allow you to move 30' and the deliver a full attack plus the extra attack. (BTW, I was one of the 8 in favor of haste+spell combat.)
So to your anecdotal evidence that hundred of tables were using it one way I can oppose the anecdotal evidence that hundred of tables did say that it wasn't possible to use haste and spell combat.As neither you or I have played at hundred of tables with with GMs that had got to a conclusion independently (several GMs from the same circle of friends don't count as they generally get to a agreement about rules work that isn't always the RAW of it) we are giving our opinion and tacking the "there are hundred of peoples that played that way" qualification to reinforce it.
The spell I'm worrying about him researching is an upgrade to shocking grasp. I figure it will be 3rd level spell for 10d6 damage, Intensified when allowed 4th level spells to a max of 15d6. Which should get him to disintegrate at level 16.
Has anyone made a Samsaran Magus? That alternate racial trait that allows you to take Spells from an alternate arcane spell list would allow you to take Infernal Ray or heroism without having to spend a Magus Arcana to do so. At lvl 16, you could take slay living off the witch spell list. That would be pretty sweet.
Downside is no boost to str or dex and a con reduction. I think upside would be pretty powerful for a Magus. The extra spells become part of your spell list which allows you to use the spells with Spellstrike.
The spell I'm worrying about him researching is an upgrade to shocking grasp. I figure it will be 3rd level spell for 10d6 damage, Intensified when allowed 4th level spells to a max of 15d6.
You can already accomplish this via an Intensified Empowered Shocking Grasp. 4th-level spell slot, 15d6 damage as early as level 10.
Disintegrate is a great spellstrike spell, but it does still allow for Fortitude (partial), and making that save pretty much guts it. At level 16, I'm wondering how many creatures have weak Fort saves to make it particularly impressive versus other 6th-level options.
Has anyone made a Samsaran Magus? That alternate racial trait that allows you to take Spells from an alternate arcane spell list would allow you to take Infernal Ray or heroism without having to spend a Magus Arcana to do so. At lvl 16, you could take slay living off the witch spell list. That would be pretty sweet.
Downside is no boost to str or dex and a con reduction. I think upside would be pretty powerful for a Magus. The extra spells become part of your spell list which allows you to use the spells with Spellstrike.
I haven't made one, but looking over the ability, the alternate racial ability is definitely a good one. It replaces their racial skill bonus, which is also nice, but not as nice as several spells of any level 1-6 from any arcane list added to your own.
The hit to con could potentially hurt though, if you don't start with at least 3 solid ability scores so you can put a solid one into Con. Magi have to be in the thick of melee to get the most out of their nova, so having low hp is definitely a serious disadvantage.